Superfinal Format at Prem Races

[alpaterson]

The Superfinal format as it stands, does not put the athletes first in my opinion. Yes, it may be exciting to watch but the majority of paddlers want to come to races to have two runs with the best of the two counting towards their result rankings. The majority do not get this.

Many paddlers and their family support also travel long distances to these races, incurring considerable expense in terms of travel costs and overnight accommodation. Therefore to have the current format represents a considerable downside when athletes / families consider whether to enter races or not as the paddler may end up having only a single run on a given day which reduces their exposure to race conditions. This can result in paying for accommodation they no longer need and then cannot cancel. In view of this, paddlers need a bit more certainty regarding the racing opportunity they will achieve by entering a particular event before committing to that event.

The Czech model that Andy Neave has suggested surely gives the best of both worlds - the excitement of a Superfinal and a second run for all paddlers regardless of their first run result. This gets my vote.

[Nick Penfold]

There is a time problem with Craig's suggestion. The paddlers who qualify from second runs will get three runs to everyone else's two: and they will need the usual hour minimum gap between runs. That means you have to schedule finals to take place at least an hour after each class's second qualification run.

I think Andy's model is a good compromise. It puts pressure on everyone in both runs, and that's the key to a bit of excitement.

[JimW]

Nick - I must be overlooking something obvious here, but surely the format used at Tully did give the paddlers that qualified on second runs, 3 runs. Admittedly with 2 min intervals for finals (for the film crew) and some ingenuity with the running order Rob probably did manage to get everyone 1 hour between runs.

Is it fair for the 3(?) athletes progressing after 2nd runs to have an extra run to get used to the course, or are they actually at a disadvantage being more tired than the other 7?

Andy Houston qualified in second runs and went on to win the C1M class, Fiona Pennie did the same in K1W, but looking at the distribution of the paddlers in the top 10 of each class there is no clear trend that the paddlers who got a second qualifying run were either advantaged or disadvantaged by it.

It seemed to me that paddlers were all pretty happy with the progressions, just baffled by why those who had to take a second run didn't get to use the best of their 2 runs for the second progression and ranking outside of the top 10. I may not have read the feelings correctly, but it certainly seemed more like bafflement and wonderment than upset or anger - did anyone notice anything different?

[Karen T]

As a Slalom Ranking Competition the primary purpose of the race must surely be to enable paddlers to progress their slalom ranking.

I feel the standard 'best of both runs' should still take precedent for the competition, not only to keep it inline with other ranking races but also to give all paddlers the best opportunity to progress their ranking. Paddlers (or parents) could also be put off travelling to such events, having to take time and expense where the result will only come down to one run. I therefore feel the Super Final seems a good addition for those competing at the top level but should not be what determines the race for the majority.

Or in short - Andy's suggestion of the Czech model ticks all the boxes for me to make a better race format for all paddlers!

[Nick Penfold]

Then I think the rule should be amended to:

B1.3.2 Super Final
Each competitor has a timed qualification race run starting in reverse bib number order. After this run the top x boats in each event proceed to the final. The remaining boats have a second timed run starting in reverse bib number order.
The final is one run starting in the reverse order of qualification results.
Course changes can be made for the final at the Organiser’s discretion.
The final result is:-
• The finishing order of the finalists based on their final result only.
• (Followed by) the finishing order of the remaining competitors in order of their best run from the two runs.

Will someone (Stafford & Stone?) propose this at the ACM, please?

[Canadian Paddler]

The feedback I got from the river bank is that qualification from the final should be possible from EITHER qualification run.

Nicks suggestion will leave the final only to be contested by those doing well in the first heat.

The rule would then be:

B1.3.2 Super Final
Each competitor has a timed qualification race run. After this run the top x boats in each event proceed to the final. The remaining boats have a second timed qualification run. After this run the top n boats in each event proceed to the final.
The final is one run starting in the reverse order of their qualification result, those qualifying from the first heat starting after those qualifying from the second heat.
Course changes can be made for the final at the Organiser’s discretion.
The final result for each event in the competition is:-
• The finishing order of the finalists based on their final result only.
• The remaining competitors in the order of their best run from the two qualification runs

The Blue text being added (cribbed from B1.3.1 ranking for Classic events)
and Deleting

• The finishing order of competitors taking a second heats based on their second heats run only.
• The remaining competitors in order of their best run from first heats run.

But as Nick says, it is down to a proposal at the ACM, and teh discussions. After all the original proposal to last year's ACM was discussed, and the last line of the rule was added at the meeting.

[andy n]

I personally agree with Nick and disagree with Colin. I regard 1st runs as effectively semis not qualification. Paddlers at the top of the sport have just one opportunity to deliver a run good enough to qualify for a final. Also, Nick has already pointed out the time implications of paddlers qualifying to the final from a 2nd run.

The proposed format does not need to have any time consequence although organisers adopting this race format should consider giving the finals extra status. This could be achieved in several ways - all finals at the end of the day, finals to run at 90s or 120s intervals, commentary with finals etc.

I am happy to discuss with S&SCC with a view to putting a proposal to the ACM.

[Canadian Paddler]

just to be clear - I am happy with either approach, I was seeking clarity as some of those I had talked to on the river bank thought that Andy/Nicks approach was to have two runs, with qualification from either, and best run counts for non finalists. I was highlighting this fact so that we make an informed decission at the ACM, with no more suprises.

Two qualification runs - you can still make the final if you mess up first run
Qualify from first run only - as said above simulates semi final / final for the top paddlers, whilst allowing everyone else to have best run counts, and potentially reduces the costs on pumped courses.