2/3/4 slaloms not allowed

[James Hastings]

Aah John, the dangers of making assumptions....although my club is based in North Yorkshire, I actually live and work in London (it's a long story), thus I am more than aware of the issues around lack of good slalom venues in the South East. I was one of those that the supported the campaign to keep the division 1 at Shepperton. Quite frankly I found the arguments around that not being div 1 standard ridiculous - when the gates are open at Shepperton it is probably one of the most difficult and committing slaloms in the country, but we just have to accept that we can't legislate for what the weather will do.

The problem the South East obviously has is that it is largely flat, so we are reliant on weir slaloms to provide decent courses for the most part. It would have been nice to have been able to say that the building of the Lea Valley White Water Centre would have contributed to the venues available but as it looks like noone saw fit to negotiate some sort of 'deal' for slalom there (as far as I'm aware), it looks like it's going to be far too expensive to run anything but international competitions there. Some legacy for a site that was purpose-built for slalom.

Thus I'm more than sympathetic towards those that wish to keep the slaloms that we have in the South East intact. However, that does not negate my argument that Cardington is not a div 2 standard course and in an ideal world we would not be running div 2s there.

Actually I think the problem with division 2 at the moment is a much more fundamental one around the imbalance of course difficulty. Of the 38 races in the div 2 calendar this year, 9 are div 1/2s, 5 are div 2s and 24 are div 2/3s or 2/3/4s. I think that the imbalance is obvious. What has happened to the div 1/2s on the Tryweryn? Regular races used to be held both in the Stilling Basin and at Chapel Falls - my belief is that a significant proportion of div 2s could also race the Graveyard. Also HP - we've now been reduced to one race per season at this venue, whereas not so long ago there were 3 or 4. And before anyone asks these were all in the calendar after the demise of div 5 as entry level.

While I think that Old School is being a little harsh saying that you can now get promoted to Prem without getting your BA wet, that is certainly the case for div 2 to 1.

[Vkcmikey]

Andy glad to see that it is not just us at Viking who get no straight answers from the committee.
I also agree it should be done on location rather then all out ban. Then if cardington is deemed not fit for div 2, which seems to be what everyone is saying, we would not run an event at cardington as I doubt we would get 50 more paddlers each day in div 3/4 event.
Which would leave only one event at Cardington. The interclubs where prem to div 3 race on the same course but that is ok.

At least we can hold events at duckmill with ease.

Still fail to see what benefit this rule is for the sport. looking at the number of 2/3/4 events and the number of competitors to me shows a worrying trend. As these event disappear the number entering the sport has also decreased and at a time when money is tight for people the more multi events as possible the better.
Still also looking for a clear reference to "short course"

[Neil H]

I think the expensive courses is a separate issue and certainly not for the committee to decide. Clubs are free to propose an event. Teesside was cancelled this year due to cost, we simply couldn't make the maths work and a club cannot chose to run an event knowing that all the effort that goes into organising it is going to be costing them a great deal of money too.

A lot of work has gone into getting Teesside in the calendar and it will run in 2013. As for the other events, if the management aren't willing to negotiate a price that is at least break even, they simply can't run. The issue with div 1 is the requirement of practice, so an additional amount if time to be pumped

Yup, I isaid it was a tangent and no mistake. I think the cost thing is totally undestandable, if it don't add up it's a no brainer.
Is there any scope for a joint initiative to make things happen - just throwing t out there!
If you get Tees running in 2013 I will be there and fair play to you.

I think I kinda meant that any weight that could ba added from anywhere; on the back of the Olympic success would be apprecated by many - anyone good at sales

.

Some legacy for a site that was purpose-built for slalom.

It is sad, I kinda wish a way round it to be found.

I'd take this tangent elsewhere if it wants to continue

[TOG]

If as clubs and coaches we want to get kids into the sport on the back of this summer's success, surely we should be looking at at least maintaining opportunity at entry level. While I can see the argument for excellence ie 2/3/4 events not stretching Div 2 or even 3 paddlers, we have to have people coming into the sport and being challenged at their current level. I've already got junior paddlers in my club asking if we can travel further afield due to the lack of opportunity/challenge in our area of the country.

[Neil H]

oops sorry Nicky my heaviness on the delete key could make it read as if my comments were yours in my last post.

[Jaytee]

Actually I think the problem with division 2 at the moment is a much more fundamental one around the imbalance of course difficulty. Of the 38 races in the div 2 calendar this year, 9 are div 1/2s, 5 are div 2s and 24 are div 2/3s or 2/3/4s. I think that the imbalance is obvious.

One outcome of this was seen at HPP last Sunday. From a quick look at the results, of the 132 Div 1 paddlers only 41 completed 2 runs without missing a gate. Many of the junior paddlers, especially the more recently promoted, appeared unprepared for the intensity of the course.
This isn't an argument to dumb down HPP, but more a plea to find ways to make Div 2 races more challenging!

[Vkcmikey]

[quote="Jaytee"][quote="James Hastings"]. Many of the junior paddlers, especially the more recently promoted, appeared unprepared for the intensity of the course.
/quote]
The whole point of a divisional system is as you rise through the divisions it gets harder. Younger paddlers will find it harder but that's the whole point unless I am missing the point.

Still going back to the 2/3/4 issue still no one found any reference to the "short course" rules.

[Canadian Paddler]

Page 52 of the year book (Division 4 Slaloms)

This describes courses that are shorter than standard, it IS teh short course div 4s, or did you miss the posting?

[Vkcmikey]

That is the div 4 rules. Which we follow when running a 2/3/4. So by conclusion we can still run a 2/3/4 and meet the rules but must not call it a 2/3/4 but a 2/3 and 4 sc.

[davebrads]

You haven't addressed the central problem, which is that division 2 courses should not be held at Cardington. Your argument appears to be that you want to run a division 3/4 slalom at Cardington, but the cost of the race is too high to be covered by the entry fees unless you run it as a 2/3/4. Looking at the results from the last race, we have 51 division 2 paddlers plus 10 div 2/3 boats racing on unsuitable water so that 18 division 4 paddlers can race at Cardington.

It seems to me that what should happen is that a division 3/4 race should be run elsewhere where costs are lower, and the division 2 race run somewhere more suitable. But that is the real problem - I don't know if there are suitable alternative sites for the 3/4, but I do know we are struggling for suitable division 2 sites. Many of the excellent division 2 sites we have had in the past are lost to us for whatever reason, and it appears we may have now lost another if racing isn't going to return to Sowerby Bridge. A discussion of lost sites, particularly in the South, can be found in this thread.

[BaldockBabe]

Perhaps what we should be looking at is having someone designated to look at obtaining sponsorship for the non-elite aspects of our sport. They would have to work closely with the elite guys to find out who has been approached and what the terms are for the sponsorship already attained so that we don't upset organsiations with multiple approaches.

This work would need to be done over the winter as most companies either have their year end at the end of Dec or end of March and deal with their budgets before then.

What would we be "offering"?

1. If we can get the sponsorship in time, space in the yearbook;
2. Space on posters advertising the event which could be circulated to all local clubs and (if Nick is happy) on this website;
3. Company name on the prizes; and
4. (if relevant to the company) banners/ company stall on site.

If we can get companies to "sponsor water" we could hold Div 2 events on the Legacy course at Lee Valley/ another day at HPP etc. All courses suitable for Div 2 events provided that the courses are well designed.

We can play on the Oympic success and put together leafletts from the Olympians explaining what sponsorship has meant to them over the years etc.

This shouldn't be done on an individual event by event basis but centrally with a well-thought out approach made.

It would take time and a dedicated person/ team (to help put together the inital pack) but would mean we could hold more Div 2 events on "good water" especially in areas (like the South East) which is really short of events....

[Neil H]

Perhaps what we should be looking at is having someone designated to look at obtaining sponsorship for the non-elite aspects of our sport.

If we can get companies to "sponsor water" we could hold Div 2 events on the Legacy course at Lee Valley/ another day at HPP etc. All courses suitable for Div 2 events provided that the courses are well designed.

This shouldn't be done on an individual event by event basis but centrally with a well-thought out approach made.

It would take time and a dedicated person/ team (to help put together the inital pack) but would mean we could hold more Div 2 events on "good water" especially in areas (like the South East) which is really short of events....

I remember raising the same thing last year on this forum and copping some cynicism. The thread is out there in the ether I am sure. I still think it's a good idea. I recall specifically mentioning Tesco as I don't believe they are short of a few bucks. The iron might be hot now ad sell it on look what there support has achieved. A well placed approach might encourage them to sponsor a Lee Valley event or something else. I wonder if there si anyne out there with the skills required. I'd work on a don't ask don't get approach

[Neil H]

Yup found two references to it from last year - one in a thread called Legacy?????? and another in Enhancing the sport - good or bad

Not sure how to link them here as I am a technical ignoramus and you can prob drop the technical from that. Not even sure if it's worht it but the threas are there if you want to look. I just searched on Tesco

[Vkcmikey]

In response to davebrads. I have been speaking with some paddlers and have come to the following understanding. If what you say is true about it not being suitable for div 2 there are a number of prem paddlers who shouldn't be in prem as they never raced on water more difficult then Matlock before being promoted to div1.
No matter what races it was, it was the same people racing at most event and finishing top, middle and bottom.
The reason people leave the sport once they get to div 1 is that most clubs can't support paddlers at that level and above. The cost get larger as the racing is not local any more and without the training and support paddlers will find it hard.
Those lucky to get the training required, support and funding will always rise to the top but without they leave for fall to the bottom of div 1.
My point is by banning 2/3/4 races it doesn't then improve div1 races. It will reduce the number of people entering the sport. Pushing them to the end of the day will not make it an attractive option. Also to me makes them feel like they are not part of the days racing.
As the committee has again turned down our request for a 2/3/4 and we await the response letter this has become a null discussion.
Remember they have not banned us from running div 2 at cardington just also running the entry level on the same course which has never been a problem. No div 4 has never said it was to hard.
Last week bumped into a div4 promoted paddler from cardington who really enjoyed the weekend but didn't complain and was looking forward to his next race.
But what do I know, other then looking at the numbers available, I have only been involved in slalom for a few years.

[Nick Penfold]

I think my reservation about all combined-division races is that the course set is sometimes just not challenging enough for the higher-division paddlers. The convention is that the course is set for the highest division racing, but that principle isn't stuck to (e.g. HPP Div 1/2, May 12).

While it's true that in some situations a well-thought-out breakout can measure a very wide range of skills, it really isn't possible to design a whole course on that principle. A suitably challenging Div 2 course ought to be very hard for Div 3s and beyond the skills of many Div 4s.