ACM Motions - Let's discuss some of the Agenda motions

[Nick Penfold]

There are a lot of motions on the Agenda, and (partly because a lots of reps come mandated) I think some of them need discussion before the event. Here's a starter for ten on some of the more controversial.

5.2 Rank all divisions on 1,000 points
Although I’m behind this one myself it’s clear to me that there are two very different issues here: basing all divisions’ points on 1,000, which is probably not controversial, and basing promotion on 5 races in all divisions, which probably is. It would make sense to separate this into two motions – anyone willing to propose that?

5.4 Calculating points in C1W
This allows Prem/1 C1W paddlers to count at most three Div 1 races (with at least two Prem events) towards their end of season ranking. I hate things that move us away from the simple arithmetic of points totals. Is this really the only option?

5.7 Shepperton Div 1
There is a need for a flagship event in the Southeast and I have every sympathy with Shepperton over the loss of the single Div 1 they held this year. I would support a motion to reinstate it – but not to hold a double.
As training water Shepperton is pretty good, but as an upper-division course it is problematic. The quality of the water is unpredictable; course design options are limited and tend to allow paddlers to adopt missing one or more gates as a strategy and benefit by it; and they usually generate at least one impossible judging decision because, without catching up, one boat obstructs or actually collides with another.
To have the points from one marginal event included in rankings is acceptable; to have two is not sensible. Llandysul’s popular double has been reduced to a single in the draft calendar for just the same reason.

5.9 Purpose of the Slalom Calendar
I don’t really understand what this motion is getting at. “Managing the calendar” is a nightmare and anyone who does it deserves a medal. In reality clubs organise events. They have customary dates and they largely dictate what events will happen and when. It would be desirable to manage the calendar more to get a balance of levels of competition and regional distribution, but the scope is limited. This motion seems to add complication and I don’t think it would have much effect.

5.12 Water and Course Grading
A good idea in principal, but there are practical problems. Difficulty varies with water levels, but also with course design. Conventional grading takes account of how easy it is to find a way down the river, but we change that when we hang slalom gates.
And is there a legal risk here? Could we be at fault because we had said a course was relatively safe and on the day it was not?
I don’t see how these issues could be resolved in time for the 2011 Yearbook, let alone the actual gradings.

5.13 Purpose of the Ranking System
Here we are at the end of a season. Promotion has brought lots of paddlers through to higher levels, and, because years of tweaking has pitched the targets near enough right, people are pretty much in the right place. Or can you point to a lot of people who should be ranked in a higher division than they are? After the ACM the Committee will decide on a much smaller number of demotions, and the demoted will definitely be people who either aren’t really hacking it in their present division or raced very little this year.
Within a club the numbers in divisions may well get “mushroom shaped”, but that’s not true for the wider racing community. Some sort of pyramid-ish shape is how things naturally are: there are lots of occasional, recreational paddlers doing the odd Div 3, fewer more serious ones developing their skills, and only two or three hundred serious competitors.
I don’t really understand what this motion is asking the Committee to do. They can perhaps emphasise the pyramid a bit less, and reviewing the system as part of a wider strategy review is sensible.
“Great Britain also uses its Ranking System to control what sort of water paddlers race on” isn’t exactly true, though it is true that the rules say (UK 20.3) "The velocity of the current and the difficulty of the course shall be appropriate to the level of competition." It’s also true that Britain has limited really good water and the top divisions get the best of it. But everyone is free to do an officials’ event anywhere, and paddlers looking for rough water experience do.

5.14 Division 1 Status
This would strip Division 1 events of the quality control of timing team and experienced judges. I think that would be disastrous for competition in Div 1, which is the gateway to Prem and based on races on water that is as hard, and as hard to judge, as Prem.
I don't recognise the idea that Div 1 is a “developmental division”. All divisions, including Prem, play a developmental role, and all are racing divisions. Taken together, Prem and Div 1 are where serious canoe slalom racing takes place – often on similar courses, on the same water, the same weekend, with the best third of our athletes performing.
But there does have to be a limit to the number of Prem and Div 1 events.
* Both Divisions are the basis of a yearly contest - in Prem for the National Championships, and in Div 1 for places in Prem: an equally passionate competition. Such a contest cannot sensibly be based on choice from an unlimited number of events, or include races of a doubtful standard.
* There are only a limited number of venues that offer water of a high enough standard.
* Cost apart, there is also a limit to the availability of judges, and the timing team and the leading judges are particularly hard-pressed – in the season they don’t have many weekends free. It is right to limit the number of races in both divisions.
How can we manage the problem? The key seems to be in combined events.
* We can hold doubles: but the more doubles you have within a limited overall number of races, the fewer venues you can use and you don’t get regional spread.
* We can combine Prem and Div 1 races in the same weekend event. For Div 1, these are usually the best races anyway!
It may be that a full strategic review will lead to a considered change, but we should not downgrade Div 1 without widespread debate.

[Munchkin]

The C1W ranked in Div 1/P have had a long series of discussions with number of solutions put forward to deal with the issues in our division. All (but one, who never responded to email rather than because she objected) of us and our ranking officer asked for this motion to be put forward as it was felt, by us, that this was the most suitable solution to the problem. Also, I think you have summarised the motion incorrectly in your post as it would allow for three Div 1 event points to be counted but in total there would still be 5 events to get your overall ranking points.

I agree with your comments on 5.7 and 5.14 in particular though.

[Nick Penfold]

Yes, my summary of 5.4 was wrong. I've edited it.

[Fup Duck]

and tend to allow paddlers to adopt missing one or more gates as a strategy and benefit by it; and they usually generate at least one impossible judging decision because, without catching up, one boat obstructs or actually collides with another.
To have the points from one marginal event included in rankings is acceptable; to have two is not sensible. Llandysul’s popular double has been reduced to a single in the draft calendar for just the same reason.

Devil's advocate:-

I don't know if the first paragraph is a reason not to run any specific event; it seems to me thought that deliberately missing gates for benefit should be penalised in some way. Surely it is not beyond us collectively to work out a way to prevent the first or second examples occurring.

When I was at Llandysul last and it was announced it was going to be a single I heard several people from the far north and even other areas say they wouldn't bother next year. I hope this isn't true but sadly I think it will be. I am sure their will be die-hards who will turn up (hopefully not wearing a dirty vest and shouting Yippee ki-ay) but it would be sad if it affected the turn out as it would be too late.

A straw poll would be interesting!

I know it's all been alluded to before, sometimes more than alluded probably, but I can't help thinking positive promotion for the future would be a better route than something that is arguably adding to further to any perceived decline.

Say this in the voice of the almighty Blessed "Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war"

[jke]

5.2. Rank all divisions on 1000 points.

I go along with this but there is a second part as Nick says above - there is a feeling [those words in the agenda] that promotion in the lower divisions may be a little too easy so base points and promotion on 5 races in all classes and divisions.

I don't agree with points and promotion based on 5 races because it puts those in the South, particularly Frome, at a disadvantage, where it involves so much travelling to get to 5 events and therefore be in with a chance of promotion or just get a reasonable ranking. As an indication for div 2, from Baldock (the proposer), the average distance to the closest 5 races is 30 miles (Lee valley x 2, Cardington x 2 and Shepperton). I've based this on attending only one Double. If they went to Cardington on two weekends the average would be 21 miles. From Frome the average is 122 miles (Shepperton x 2, Lee Valley x 2 and Ironbridge). I thought we were trying to encourage participation but to make it even harder to get promoted or get a good position is just too discouraging. If you must limit the numbers then just demote more at the bottom.

5.6. Age bands. Make J10 age band official. Ditto the U23 across all divisions.

Whilst I agree with the J10 age band (and we give prizes at our events to J10), I don't agree with the U23. Currently U23 is a band in Prem and 1. I can see the purpose of U23 in Prem where the expectation is that paddlers will be at their peak in their late 20's, but for div 2 and below it doesn't make sense. The best paddlers in those divisions tend to be J12s or not much older. I just don't see any point.

5.9. Purpose of the Slalom Calendar, and purpose of managing it.
5.13. Purpose of the Ranking System.

Whilst I support 5.9 and 5.13 which are about allowing paddlers on the more challenging courses when in the lower divisions, particularly where there are far too many flat courses, I don't see how that is possible in the South without reinstating many lost events. That is only going to happen if it is recognised that it has to be kick-started.

[Terryg]

Also disagree with the idea of changing results from best 4 to best 5.
Some of us old Vets don't get to many events, and this could discourage some people from competing.

[Munchkin]

Baldock did NOT propose the 5 events change nor the change to 1000 points so please don't use us as the basis of your calculations jke.

[jke]

You're right. Yours are before and after. This must be one proposed by the committee.

[Canadian Paddler]

See the top of the first post:

5.2 Rank all divisions on 1,000 points
Although I’m behind this one myself

Nick is from parts of the South. (I suspect that some Scots would love a 122 mile div 2 average.)

[John Sturgess]

I have with Nick's permission posted separate discussion strands for eah of the motions likely to prove most contentious: and I will try to transfer onto them the comments already made.

But I don't know whether my computer skills will be up to that!

[Fup Duck]

Well done - that's certainly a good idea for clarity, otherwise it will get convoluted.