Portable Points - New Proposals

[Nick Penfold]

To be proposed by Halifax CC and seconded by Kingston KC.

For several years people have been thinking through the way we run Slalom, and they have come up with a proposal that makes full use of the established ranking system but opens things up a bit. “Portable Points” isn’t a very good title, because the scope is wider, but it’s the shorthand name we’ve got used to.

A first set of “Portable Points” proposals was brought to the ACM last year. There was interest, but some of the details worried people and PP was sent away for a rethink. This is the revised proposal.
But first, why? We think we can:

• Increase the number of events available to paddlers.
• Increase the number of paddlers at events (and therefore the income).
• Ensure priority entry at popular events.
• Give paddlers early experience of the bigger water offered to higher divisions and reward them appropriately (with points).
• Define races so that it is clear to organisers what level of challenge should be set, and to paddlers what level to expect.

For more info, and the proposal, follow the links below. And please discuss!
http://www.canoeslalom.co.uk/info/23071 ... _intro.htm
http://www.canoeslalom.co.uk/info/15071 ... s_prop.htm

[paddlerparent]

Read all of the info and only have one concern. If prem race, will prem paddlers get priority entry until 4 weeks before as they do now? Or will everyone get same priority entry?

Otherwise looks good

[harratts]

Well done everyone who has taken the time to make an input and generate this revised proposal.

Although I was quite against the initial concept of such a system I think that your new concept retains all of the benefits but avoids many of the negatives of such a system being introduced.

I would expand on your thinking to say that it is only the host division K1 men's class that would have ranking points calculated in the traditional way. Every other class / paddler would then be compared to that division in the manner that you have described for a paddle-up entrant in your revised proposal. This way we avoid the massive swing when some classes just go from being incorate to being corate. If all entrants are quite slow then none of them should get high points just because there were 5 of them in the race on that day.

For completeness however I think that you also need to include revised promotion points targets within your proposal. What would these need to become if you only get 250 points for winning a Div. 3 race?

The only concern that remains for me in regard to the introduction of such a system is the affect that it will have on paddlers volunteering to judge at future events. These numbers already seem to me to be at a critical level.

Steve

[Dee]

Well done to those putting the proposal together.

Steve - Whilst I agree with the lack of judges being an issue, I don't think this will have any real impact on the volunteer base!

[Nick Penfold]

To paddlerparent: yes, I would assume that the host division has priority entry, as now, until 4 weeks before the event.

To harrats: yes, we do need to cover promotion targets. This is in discussion but we envisage as K1 targets:
Div 1 to Prem: 4750
Div 2 to Div 1: 2250
Div 3 to Div 2: 1060

These are simply pro-rated to the new points maximums, except that the 3 to 2 figure is rounded up.

The traditionally lower targets for C1 look over-generous if you look at the proportion of each division promoted, and I'd like to see opinions about making the C1 targets the same as K1.

[harratts]

Hi Nick

Thanks for the additional detail in regard to what future divisional point targets would be required for promotion. They all appear to make sense given the proposed maximum points available under the new system for each divisional race.

Another question would be "Why is it easier (a lower points requirement) to get promoted from 3 to 2, than it is from 2 to 1 and eventually 1 to Prem.?

My view on the question you raised is that given the increased interest in the C1 classes in recent years then the target for promotion should be the same across the classes.

Hope others agree.
Steve

[JoS]

I think this is great! What initially bothered me about portable points was having no div 2/3 events to use as incrementally harder and/or more scary targets for development, like a staircase to help make it up what feels like a big step for an adult learner. I really like this solution.

[JoS]

(I have no opinion about C1 though, still can't go round corners in one...)

[Nick Taylor]

Kudos & thanks to all those who have worked to make Portable Points easier to understand & put into practice.

Please can someone explain to me which single problem it will solve?

It seems to me that it increases complexity with no clear benefit. Happy to be convinced otherwise….

[JoS]

The problem where people would do div 3/4 events on div 3/4 water and then get promoted to div 2 and the water is a big step change in scariness, and all their benchmarks for "this is a move I can do but this is one I need to work on" and "this course took me 150s last time, let's see if I can beat that" have to be re-established because it's a whole new set of courses. Also the problem of kid #1 gets promoted to div 2, kid #2 is still in div 3, family has one roof rack and one tent.

[djberriman]

I don't think the proposal solves any major problems.

It does however offer opportunities.

Paddlers who are moving through the divisions fast can accelerate that process which means they achieve more more quickly and perhaps affect those in the lower divisions less, particularly perhaps those whose points are based on K1M results which can be skewed by a particularly fast K1 paddler.

Paddlers may be able to race more events (as the have access to paddle up events) or more local events (as they can paddle up locally rather than traveling for hundreds of miles for a divisional race).

Paddlers can challenge themselves on bigger water to get experience before getting promoted, whilst gaining points for their current division. Many parents have limited financial resources so would probably normally instead take them to the lower division to get some points, paddling at the higher division is currently would be 'pointless', overall the paddler probably gets more out of paddling up under the proposed system.

Parents with paddlers in different divisions can have both paddlers paddling at a weekend (one divisional, one paddling up).

When a hard working paddlers gets promoted they don't start on zero points if they have paddled up, they start with all their paddle up points which rewards their success so far. At the end of the season their points and ranking for their new season is based on their performance throughout the season.

[JimW]

I have found time to read through the proposal in detail now, it looks pretty workable and promising, but a couple of things come to mind that might be worthy of more consideration/discussion.

- The proposal only allows paddlers to paddle up one division, which is probably enough of a step for most people, but could something be worked out so that paddlers could paddle up more than one division? At times there may be safety or organisational issues like catch ups, but at present anyone can enter in the officials event at any slalom without restriction so it's not something we have never dealt with before....

- The problem with the above, and potentially with paddle ups from next division as proposed, is that all paddle ups slower than the last paddler in the host division would get the same points as that paddler. How about if the paddle ups have points calculated against others in the same division, out of the normal divisional score, and also based on how their time fits in with the host division paddlers, the final score being whichever is higher. That way all paddle ups who mix into the host division get appropriate enhanced points to acknowledge they have paddled as well as the hosts on the harder course, and any paddle ups who don't beat any hosts, still get some points which take account of the fact that some of their own division also beat them. If the lower division(s) are inquorate the regular points calculation should probably be to half normal points?

- I know I caused a stir earlier in the year by asking about entering as paddle up in a div 2/3 where the div 2 course was to be significantly different to the div 3 course, in the end I gained promotion prior to the event so it was a non-issue, the current proposal clearly does not allow for that, but I feel that it should, after all the point is to give opportunities for fast track promotion to genuinely talented paddlers.

As for the question about C1 promotion points, I never quite understood why they were lower, presumably because with fewer competitors at most events it is harder to get over the threshold (top 10% might be 2 paddlers rather than 5)? Something inside of me says they probably should be aligned, and at first glance just under 25% of div 2 K1 men have made promotion compared to just under 33% of div 2 C1 men, but on the other hand if they had been aiming for the same points as few as 10% might have made it (obviously some of those promoted at less than K1 points would have picked up more points had they stayed in division, at the expense of others so it is impossible to predict that properly). I'm undecided about this, and I haven't checked any other divisions.

[lesf]

Regarding C1 points, the different points for promotion in C1 and K1 have been there for years. The figures in this motion are only converting the values for the new differential points in each divisions. There may be a good argument for the values being the same in C1 and K1 (or good arguments to retain the difference) but that probably should be done as a separate motion if that's what is wanted. If it were done within the Portable Points motion and that gets defeated, the change to C1 points wouldn't go through.

Paddling up more than one division - there may be a few paddler that could and would want to do this. But that's probably a step too far at the moment. If PP goes through and has bedded in someone could bring a proposal to do that in the future !

Paddle ups slower than the last paddler all get the same points - yes, but if the class is quorate the points gained through paddle up are unlikely to be better than points they could have gained from races in their own divisions. The proposal put forward in 2015 would have calculated the points based on all those in the class (host and paddle up) so all would have had different points, but it was felt this would distort the points for paddlers in the host division too much, hence the matching again the next best host paddler points

being able to paddle up at a Div 2/3 when the course will be different - I see your point (eg at Pinkston where there will be different water levels for each division), but enabling this would complicate the rules considerably for limited number of race where it applied and a few cases where people wanted to do it.

[oldandslow]

Just a thought which I haven't spent any time at all thinking through…

Could there be a minimum points value? So at a div 3 you will get between 1 to 250 points. At a Div2 points between 200 if you are last to 500 if you win etc.

With more end of season demotions too. For example, you'd be demoted if you got less than 1250 for 5 races in div 2 (pro-rata on the number of races - so if you have less than 750 points for 3 races).

[Nick Penfold]

Paddling up more than one division - there may be a few paddler that could and would want to do this. But that's probably a step too far at the moment. If PP goes through and has bedded in someone could bring a proposal to do that in the future !

Each event is organised primarily for the paddlers in the host division, and they deserve not to have to spend their time rescuing paddlers who can't cope with the water. Limiting paddle up to one division may be hard on a handful of promising paddlers, but they will be up into PU range within weeks anyway if they get to the races held for their own divisions.