Shepperton Weir - The end of Div 1 slaloms ???????

[Munchkin]

I was intrigued by Munchkin's quote “Wait and see… there will be a reason so there is no point in speculating”
So I thought I would look on the committee pages to see if there were any clues there, but couldn’t find anything. (but like most males looking for things is not my strong point).

But I did find a draft calendar for Prem & Div1 and Shepperton was listed.
The calendar is described as;
“This provisional 2011 Slalom Managed Calendar is based on applications received from clubs before the Prem/Div1 application closing date and is subject to approval at the ACM.”

So I’m now concerned, Have a done a Rip Van Whats it and slept through the rest of 2010 and missed the ACM?

So how long do we have to wait to find out why the Slalom Committee has decided to cancel an event.

“Putting Paddlers First and Valuing Volunteers”

Isn’t this on the front page of each Slalom Committee report?
So putting paddlers first;

They don’t want us to get cold at events in early March.

And Valuing Volunteers;

Can’t think of anything for this so perhaps Shepperton are the wrong sort of volunteers?

Talking of volunteers aren’t the Slalom Committee all volunteers, so thanks for the time you put into the good job you do.
But please do yourselves a favour and don’t keep people in the dark.

I can see why you can't find it on the pages. If I remember correctly those at the ACM mandated the committee to review all events at all levels and to come up with a proposal (though I note that it is not in the minutes (that I could see)) which is what I assume PaulB is referring too and why I said wait and see.

[davewaine]

I have looked at the ACM minutes and can find no trace of any mandate for the committee to review the slaloms and come up with proposals. Are the minutes incorrect? If they are correct then what's happening? Lets leave it up to the paddlers not the committee to decide - if enough paddlers want these events to continue then they must make their voices heard.

"Putting Paddlers Last and Scorning Volunteers"

[Munchkin]

I think the minutes are incorrect. It came up because I (and others) said that there were some events that were being held on unsuitable water, that is not minuted either but I know it was said.

[Canadian Paddler]

[Anti flame underwear on] Do not shoot the messenger
1) Historical points

find no trace of any mandate for the committee

The BCU removed the power of the ACM six years ago, about the time I dropped off the committee. There are no AGMs now they are Annual CONSULTATIVE meetings (apparently there can only be one AGM for the company that is the BCU (or is it Canoe England)) At that stage the BCU turned things on their head, the committee runs slalom, and just consults the clubs rather than running slalom under a mandate from the clubs => There is no need for a mandate, BUT the committee has always treated ACM decisions as being ones that the committee should abide by. I do not see that changing.
If you want a mandate from back when it was an annual general meeting, the committee was asked to introduce procedures to MANAGE the calendar, that is what is being attempted.

2) There will be a strategy paper published shortly. Sorry to those who have been promised it tonight, but I have been asked for a couple more days to get final comments from those at the recent meeting. When approved, I will post a link here and get it out for Nick to publish (and no doubt comment on it.

3) I have not seen the notice to the clubs involved, but we have increasing numbers of sites wanting to run higher division events, and the consultations I have done indicate that there is a desire to control this growth. The corollary of this is that some sites will not run the events the want each year, which does not mean that they will NEVER run an event at that level again, just not that year. So Shepperton 2012 is not ruled out.
By the way, an open at Shepperton could be run with a div 2, allowing people to demonstrate support (and making more money for the club), but would you go with no ranking points? Remembering that Shepperton was one of the least attended div 1s last year.

4) BUT the date to apply for new div 1/prem events is passed. The ACM agreed to stick to the dates for applying for events this year, so it is too late to apply for a prem in the Lee Valley for 2011. Not to say there will be no events, after all there will be pre Olympics, and there is nothing to stop an open event.

Now turning off phone and going into hiding.

Oh all right, seriously my phone is on, my email is known, you can pm me from here, and I will be at events. Feel free to talk to me, or the chair of the slalom committee or other committee members about this.

I agree with David as well, if you do not like what the current VOLUNTEERS are doing, stand up and get elected, propose votes of no confidence, I am happy for someone to take over my committee position if they want. . . . be nice to have a proper vote

[Nicky]

PADDLERS - if you want to stop the venues being hacked by the Slalom Committee then act.
Contact the Committee members.
" The committee are as always open to constructive suggestions as to how to improve the calendar for all. However these will only be taken into consideration if directed to the committee via Jenny - email her on jennywalker@talktalk.net "
Come to the AGM and support the motion to reinstate the events.
Get voted onto the Committee and give some true paddler's representation.
Don't let them slowly kill off slalom.

I agree with all of this quote except the last bit, I don't think that the amount of effort that goes in by certain individuals on the committee has the intention of killing off slalom.

The calendar is only a proposed calendar until the AGM when it is agreed. If you have any issues with the managed calendar, speak to jenny, if there is overwhelming support for an event, I'm sure that the committee will have it reinstated.

The reason that Abbey isn't in the calendar is the fact that we are running a pile of events next year already, i have taken on too much this year and I still enjoy canoeing more than organising events. We are only a small club, new to slalom, i ran my first event 2 seasons ago, ended up running a pile last year (tees tigers first year of running events and we ran races froim prem - 4) and have put in for plenty the in 2011. We are taking on the prem race at the barrage and running the canoe polo national championships, so we don't have the time or volunteers to run quite so many things...

Rest assured we've not been axed!

In short, the best way to resolve this issue is to speak to the committee, if all they get is my message of support, it won't have any impact, but if plenty of people email, then I'm sure it will reappear.

Nicky

[Canadian Paddler]

To save Jenny being deluged as only her address is here, mine is colin.woodgate@o2.co.uk other emails are available in the slalom yearbook.

[Username]

I organised the Shepperton race this year, but for various reasons this is the first time I've heard this... and I'm confused as to the reason.

Entry numbers?

Entry numbers weren't great, but as others have mentioned that was because we were only allowed a single 1 and single 2; naturally people weren't willing to travel long distances for a single race (in the same way that I'm not too keen to drive all the way to Tully for a single!) but had we been allocated a double race I have no doubt that entries would have been much better. On the weekend we received a huge number of compliments from paddlers, parents and timing/judging teams.

Too many div 1 slaloms?

Racing slalom at a higher level is already hard enough for us Southerners - with pretty much all the races being in Wales, Northern England or Scotland and the only remotely close choice being Nottingham. With the opening of Lee Valley not being in time for next season, this will increase even further the difficulty for Southern paddlers who have jobs and other commitments to get to races, making slalom even more the domain of the Northern clubs. Surely if there are 'too many Div 1 slaloms' it is least logical to remove the only Southern one? (I for one don't think there are too many, for the record.)


Unreliable water?

Low water hasn't been a problem in recent years. We have an excellent relationship with the lock-keeper who is always happy to assist in maintaining a good water level for the race. As others have mentioned, natural rivers have just as many problems - I recall a Town Falls race 3 or so years back that was almost entirely flat because the falls were too low to be run (but still made challenging by excellent tight course setting).

The 'wrong' kind of course?

Shepperton is the only high-level slalom run on a Weir course. Personally, I consider this to be a good thing. I think the slalom season should be made up of a range of courses - I would HATE a season that consisted entirely of man made concrete river courses, which sadly seems to be the way things are going. I appreciate that they have reliable water, blah blah blah, but for me it's not all about the water - it's about the whole experience. I think that losing a weir course at the top level would be a serious shame - yes, sometimes different people do well at it, but that's a GOOD thing. The best paddlers will be capable of paddling on all different types of water and courses, and as no-one can get promoted at a double anyway they'll still have to show ability on a 'river' course in order to get anywhere!

Organisation?
If it was that, well, err, sorry... I'm not aware of any massive problems though?

Oh well...
Cat

[Fup Duck]

If there is a deluge then that should be taken as a indicator

[Munchkin]

Personally I think there are too many Div 1 events. Most Div 1 competitors race at most events during the year. Not only is this costly but it also gives them (and their parents) little time to do anything else, even if that something else is proper training and/ or assisting at lower division events. I know it is up to you which events you go to but in reality if you are chasing promotion you will use every opportunity you can to get those points. However, I will not state which events I think should go/ alternate.

I though I would put together a list of all the Div 1's held last year and this year so far and the number of competitors at each event so that people had something to work on. Though the interesting thing is that in 2009 numbers don't drop significantly for single division events (in fact, the two busiest events were both single events!)...

EVENT 2009 VET K1M K1W C1 (both) C2
Shepperton 45 26 8 2
41 23 7 1
Trywerwyn (s) 57 26 14 5
Tully (s) 2 44 28 12 5
Trywerwyn (s) 55 25 10 6
HPP (s) 58 29 15 6
Bala (s) 1 55 28 15 6
HPP 1 54 33 13 3
1 54 29 9 3
Washburn 53 30 12 3
49 31 11 3
Tully 2 49 29 10 4
49 30 11 4
HPP (s) 3 45 32 13 4
Abbey Rapids 44 24 13 4
Llandysul 49 29 12 1
51 31 12 2

EVENT 2010 VET K1M K1W C1 (both) C2
Trywerwyn (s) 49 27 12 4
Shepperton (s) 29 17 9
Tully (s) 1 41 29 15 6
Trywerwyn 1 65 44 18 4
HPP 1 59 31 15 2
1 55 29 11 1
HPP (s) 51 24 11 4
Abbey Rapids 51 23 9 1
51 22 11

[Nicky]

for completness, would it not be better to compare the proportion of total numbers in the division, or does that not have a significant impact?

At the beginning of the season there are a number of paddlers desperate for promotioni who race everywhere, is there a point in the season when the numbers drop off before inreasing as the number of promotions go up?

Or do the numbers just even themselves out?

or do you look at something more complicated like only considering those who could have raced at every race i.e. those who were already in the division at the beginning of the year and didn't get up at the end...

Nicky

[Munchkin]

Nicky, it might help but I don't have that infomation as the ranking lists on the site only have the bib numbers for 2009, not who started the year, I could probably go back over the yearbooks to find out BUT I can tell you (as I have looked at all the results lists to produce the numbers) that is it the same names that appear time and time again (particularly in the K1W (but I will notice that more as I know them!)).

I doubt that the proportions would help as during the year you will have almost continuous movement (apart for the first few events obvously). Though more are clearly promoted to Div 1 then move up to Prem, so you might expect the numbers in division 1 to increase slightly as the year goes on.

[Dee]

FACTS:

2009 was the first time that Shepperton ran the div 1/2 as a double. This was actually at the request of the committee as well as paddlers. We had several paddlers that year who had not been to Sheppy before and did say that they loved it and would be back - but only if it was a double.

We did apply for a double for 2010 but unfortunately missed the deadline for applications and so were only allowed to hold a single this year with the subsequent drop in numbers.

At this year's event the comment on the jury form from the jury chair (appointed by the Slalom Committee) was that he would support a double div 1 event for Shep in 2011

Our application for 2011 was submitted in good time.

We did take the decision to cancel the div 1 in 2006 because of lack of water, BUT many div 1 events have been run on less water! Since then water levels have provided an appropriate, albeit varying, challenge.

As many people have pointed out we are the only div 1 slalom in this part of the country.


OPINION

The event is unlikely to be viable as a div 2 only and the water is likely to be too much of a challenge to run as a div 2/3.

There are not enough div 1 races and not enough doubles. If you never do anything else and can make all the races then fine, but some of us have lives outside of slalom and like to have some opportunity to choose which races to go to and, importantly, would like to have at least one event reasonably close to home.

We NEED at least one div 1/2 event in the South/South East or young paddlers from this part of the country will drop out of slalom as soon as they get beyond div 3.

If an event is to be dropped (and as I say I think we need more events not fewer) then it should be in part of the country where there are several races, eg Reduce Grandtully to one event and/or Trweryn. Don't punish Southerners.

Shepperton has made and is making huge efforts to raise the profile of kayaking and slalom in the South and, yes, the div 1/2 event contributes to the coffers which allow the club to exist and progress.

There is another thread on the board where paddlers are reminising about old slalom sites and talking about ressurecting them and yet the committee wants to kill off another one. I know that they are not trying to kill slalom, but believe that killing this event will significantly contribute to the death of slalom in the South.

PLEA:

If you have added to this thread or considered it then email the committee with your thoughts. Don't assume that they will read what is here

[andya]

for completness, would it not be better to compare the proportion of total numbers in the division, or does that not have a significant impact?

At the beginning of the season there are a number of paddlers desperate for promotioni who race everywhere, is there a point in the season when the numbers drop off before inreasing as the number of promotions go up?

Or do the numbers just even themselves out?

or do you look at something more complicated like only considering those who could have raced at every race i.e. those who were already in the division at the beginning of the year and didn't get up at the end...

Nicky

Interesting question about early, vs mid, vs late season numbers.

On the whole division sizes are fairly static (division size realignment excepted), so for a average division. Numbers of paddlers:

(Promoted to higher division + given up for the season + demoted to out of division) = (promoted into the division + demoted from division above)

Therefore logic states over a season the number of active paddlers in the division increases steadily, as paddlers who have retired for the season, in effect do so from the first race of the season


So for instance in 2009 K1M D1

Start of year 2009 =118

10 (Promoted to higher division) + (Paddlers given up for the season) + 13 (Paddlers demoted to D2) = 34 (Promotees into the division 1) + 6 (Demotees from Prem)

End of year = 116

Therefore number of K1M D1 given up between 2008 and start 2009 = 21


So number of active paddlers in K1 D1M

- at first race of 2009 = SOY - given up = 118 - 21 = 97
- at last race of year = EOY - D1 demotees = 116 - 6 = 110

[andya]

We NEED at least one div 1/2 event in the South/South East or young paddlers from this part of the country will drop out of slalom as soon as they get beyond div 3.

Agreed, but you can widen it, and add the whole South West. There is only one double Div 3 slalom left in the whole South West (and two D4) (All run by Frome CC) .. thats it. So it is the whole of Southern England we're taking about here.

So I'd expand the statement:

We NEED more Div 2's and Div 3's in the South, or paddlers from the south of England will continue to drop out of slalom as soon as they get out of Div 4.

We can't afford to Lose Shepperton as a 1, 2, 3, or 4...!

[Dee]

3) I have not seen the notice to the clubs involved, but we have increasing numbers of sites wanting to run higher division events,

The only additional div 1 site on the calendar that I can see is Serpents Tail and I thought this one was replacing Town Falls. Can you clarify which new site is replacing Shepperton

3)the consultations I have done indicate that there is a desire to control this growth.

Could you clarify who the consultations have been with, I've asked a handful of div 1 paddlers and they have not been consulted. I'm not saying they should have been, but I think they do have a stake?

3) The corollary of this is that some sites will not run the events the want each year, which does not mean that they will NEVER run an event at that level again, just not that year. So Shepperton 2012 is not ruled out.

Last year, when we asked to run a double for 2010 we were told that running a double for 2011 was not ruled out.

3)By the way, an open at Shepperton could be run with a div 2, allowing people to demonstrate support (and making more money for the club), but would you go with no ranking points?

I occasionally see open events in the calendar, but there never seem to be many takers when we look at the results. Can you give an example where an Open at this level has been well or even moderately attended. Somehow I don't think we would get enough entries to make the event viable.

3) Remembering that Shepperton was one of the least attended div 1s last year.

Granted, but I think there are a number of reasons for this that should be considered before sending Shepperton the way of other southern slaloms.

1) 2009 was the first year we had run a double. A lot of paddlers hadn't troubled to come previously because of the distance and didn't really know what to expect so didn't come. Many of those that did come were keen to return this year, but only for a double. I think a couple of years of a double event would have seen an increase in numbers.

2) Some div 1 paddlers (and div 2) didn't come because they had seen Shepperton the previous year and were scared of the water. Shepperton can be a challenge!

3) The event was first in season and for some they just hadn't realised the season was about to start. Their entries arrived too late and missed the deadline!

3) I suspect that, because there are so few div 1/2 slaloms in the South, we have comparatively fewer slalom paddlers, so a higher proportion of paddlers need to travel further. However, if I'm right on this one, then if we remove Sheppy then there will be no div 1/2 slaloms in the South and fewer paddlers will stay in the sport at this level, so there will be no need for a southern slalom and the spiral will head downwards.