Simplifying Vets

General slalom chatter...rant about the bad, rave about the good
djberriman
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by djberriman » Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:44 am

I'm not sure how it would be unclear, if entering by card they put Div 2 or Div 3 on their card like an other competitor.

Div 2/3 Vets already declare a division and this is on the ranking database used by online entry so when they enter their division is already declared as 2 or 3, P/1 vets could do the same (if they don't already). Declaration to be done at start of season and last for that season.

Their entry thus says Div 2 or Div 3 like any other competitor.

Simply Slalom also already knows the division and would calculate the appropriate points.

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by Dee » Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:23 am

I think some of the confusion is that Vets are shown as racing in Vet2/3 on SS. So most people (including me until recently) could be forgiven for not realising that there really are two races going on, i.e. a Vet 2 and a Vet 3 at a 2/3 event. At a div 2 event the race is really a Vet 2 with Vet 3s being allowed to paddle up and at a Div 3 it is Vet 3 race with Vet 2s being allowed to paddle down. (Paddle downs getting prizes but no points)

This is completely different from other combined divisions including P/1 vets where they are both ranked and race in a single division and C2s who are also in true combined 2/3 and P/1 divisions (as were C1Ws at one time).

In some ways I think it would be clearer if we got rid of the concept of Vet 2/3 races altogether and called them Vet 2 and Vet 3 allowing paddle ups and paddle downs. At a 2/3 comp you would then have separate Vet 2 and Vet 3 races thus clearly indicating that there are two divisions.
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!

djberriman
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by djberriman » Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:37 pm

The vagueness of the current rules has also seen P/1 Vets paddling at 2/3 events.

Terryg
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:29 pm
Location: Stevenage

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by Terryg » Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:29 pm

Yep. Once raced Shaun Pearce in a Div2 event.
:lol:

Terryg
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:29 pm
Location: Stevenage

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by Terryg » Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:02 pm

Dee said:
"In some ways I think it would be clearer if we got rid of the concept of Vet 2/3 races altogether and called them Vet 2 and Vet 3 allowing paddle ups and paddle downs. At a 2/3 comp you would then have separate Vet 2 and Vet 3 races thus clearly indicating that there are two divisions."

Gets my vote.
:D

mally
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:54 pm
Location: London

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by mally » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:47 pm

Given all the comments on this post, I'm now a bit unclear about what the proposal is. Talking to other masters paddlers in prem, the current system seems to work well enough. There's a good sense of cameraderie AND competition between us, and not a lot of appeal in changing to vets unless forced to by injury or lack of points. Masters is another age category like junior, u23 and so on, it aligns with the international masters games events, and so there seems plenty of reasons to keep Masters as is.

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by Dee » Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:46 pm

I don't think that anyone is suggesting changing masters in any way. This is purely about Vets which are those who have opted out of the main ranking divisions. Vets and Masters are not the same thing
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!

User avatar
davebrads
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:43 am
Location: Tamworth
Contact:

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by davebrads » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:50 am

Nick Penfold wrote:With reference to Dee's thread, but taking it seriously, how about simplifying Vets like this:
So opened the thread. Since then we are on 3 pages and if anything we are further away from simplification than ever.

At the end of the day veterans are not important. The veteran class was formed to allow people to continue to race at a certain level when they are no longer able to continue on merit. The intentions are good, but it must be remembered that the class is there only as an adjunct to the divisional system and it should therefore operate in a way that it does not adversely impact on the experience of the divisional paddlers or be onerous to the organiser.

So in my opinion the rules must be simple, and the only way to do this is that a veteran competes in a selected division. After all this reflects the intention of the veterans class, anything else is offering greater flexibility to veterans than to anyone else which seems to me to be unfair.

I would also suggest that given the current problems of oversubscription veterans should only be given places after the closing date for the competition so that there is no way a divisional paddler can be excluded from a race because the place has been taken by a veteran paddler.

I am sure that this will be unpopular with most of the people writing in this thread. We have a lot of contributions basically saying that we should organise the sport to allow them to do what they want, but we shouldn't ignore the vast majority of paddlers in the sport who aren't contributing to (and probably not even reading) this thread because they don't see how it affects them.

JimW
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:17 pm
Location: Pinkston

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by JimW » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:13 pm

Dave, are you effectively suggesting do away with P/1 and 2/3 and just have veterans choose a single division to race alongside?

That would seem to be the simplest simplification, just replicate what the divisions do, but alongside instead of within.

User avatar
davebrads
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:43 am
Location: Tamworth
Contact:

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by davebrads » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:28 pm

Yes, that would simplify things completely. The vets will then only be racing against the other vets in their chosen division, which is surely the point of having points :D , and there won't be any problems comparing the result of a division 2 vet against a division 3 vet at the same race.

After all any vet who wants to race outside their selected division has the same opportunity to take an officials run as anyone else.

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by Dee » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:49 pm

My original post which then triggered this thread was really about the div 2/3 vets. I wouldn't have a problem if 2/3 Vets were like C2s, ie compared to div 2s at a div 2/3.
It was the realisation that div2/3 Vets are actually two separate groups with two separate points calculations that made me suggest that it was all rather more complex. I've subsequently discovered that Vet3s expect to pay div 3 fees even when racing at a 2/3 competition (C2s pay div 2 fees).

I think that there is so much disagreement/misunderstandings that the likeliest scenario will be for Vets to remain exactly as they are. However, from an online entry point of view it is likely that Vet 3s will continue to find themselves overcharged at div 2/3 competitions - the work involved to avoid this is much more complex than it sounds and just is not worthwhile to support a handful of paddlers at a handful of races. So apologies in advance to all Vet 3s.
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!

Jerry Tracey
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:09 am

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by Jerry Tracey » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:57 pm

Davebrads said:
At the end of the day veterans are not important
and
veterans should only be given places after the closing date for the competition
Surely this would be unfair. We pay the same entry fee for P/1 events as anyone else; shouldn't we be treated on an equal basis if we enter correctly in good time?

djberriman
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by djberriman » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:50 pm

Ah I see we only put paddlers first and value volunteers if they are young.

User avatar
davebrads
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:43 am
Location: Tamworth
Contact:

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by davebrads » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:41 am

That is almost exactly the opposite of what I am saying. There is nothing ageist in anything I have said, there is nothing stopping an older paddler from racing in the divisional system on the same footing as a 12 year old. All I am objecting to is older paddlers arranging things so that they have an advantage over everyone else in being able to pick and choose what races they can enter. That to me seems to be unfair.

Phil Stevo
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Simplifying Vets

Post by Phil Stevo » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:19 pm

I take your point Dave about favouring one section of paddlers over others, however there are some pragmatic issues here.

The picking and choosing is really helpful for club coaches who are supporting competitors over a range of divisions and want to race as well. This also goes for parents who have children spread over the divisions.

When I came back to the sport with our children the purple bib was really useful as they came through the lower divisions. Then once established in the higher divisions I went back into the divisional system.

If we want older paddlers to return to the sport with their children this flexibility is really useful I think. Having all Vets able to enter any division will increase the flexibility even more and will hopefully encourage more back to the sport with their broods.

Post Reply