6.13 Simplification of the Paddle Up Rules

[djberriman]

I'm not sure that is true, I seem to remember last year it appeared it was decided paddle up would be passed so we were only allowed to apply for single division events as I remember until after the acm when we were allowed an opportunity to amend races back to a mixed division race when the motion failed. As a result a lot of races were lost.

[djberriman]

The simplest way to deal with oversubscribed races is to allow 2 events on the same day.

[James Hastings]

I'm well aware of that CeeBee, which is the reason the term 'paddle up' was in inverted commas.

From where I'm standing Canadian Paddler it seems that multi-divisional races were discouraged in anticipation of portable points being accepted.

The reason why div 1 races are oversubscribed is that the division is far too big. The divisional structure is supposed to be roughly pyramidal but it isn't. It has a big bulge in div 1, which is almost the same size as div 2. Instead of introducing portable points in my opinion the slalom committee should take the bull by the horns and:

1) Significantly reduce the size of div 1
2) Make it much harder to get promotion from div 1 to div 2 in future or ensure that the number of demotees from div 1 roughly equals promotions from div 2

However with the current state of the div 2 race calendar a large proportion of div 1s demoted to div 2 would probably leave the sport.

If clubs are not prepared to run at least some div 2s on decent water then maybe it's time to change the way the calendar is managed and instead of it being based on when and what clubs want to run, the Slalom Committee should set the calendar based on a reasonable spread of events in each division and then invite clubs to 'bid' to organise them.

James

[Steve Agar]

Whilst the thread has drifted away from the original topic, I think we're now debating a more fundamental point. It is true that there are more div 1 paddlers than before, and less div 2 events. We must recognise that with more intensive coaching programmes and more focus on winning medals, the overall standard in the top half of the sport has improved so that many, many more paddlers are capable of paddling the div 1 venues and events we now run. I, like many others, have seen the sport change dramatically over the years and, whether I like it or not, running a 90 second slalom through 18 gates on a 250m stretch of water is how we've chosen to develop. If we accept that state of affairs, we then need to rethink our divisional structure that has actually kept its same basic shape for 50 years. If events are oversubscribed, we simply need more of them (and running one event over a weekend (at a location that some people will always have to travel miles to as we're a national sport) isn't going to help that. Competitors are getting a worse and worse deal (and I've seen too many instances where the event, or parts of it, seem to be run for the benefit and convenience of those running it), and paying more and more for less and less. The shortage of testing div 2 events makes progression harder, and is very discouraging to those that wish to push themselves a bit further each time they race. Although CE has suggested additional funding for harder div 2s, the message doesn't seem to have got through. Maybe because willing organisers are hard to find (and unnecessary bureaucracy doesn't help encourage anyone), and the financial risks high, it's no surprise that clubs won't take it on. As a result of our Olympic success, we are told to be grateful for the money then flowing into our sport. But is that really the case? The additional funding appears ring-fenced for elite competition and development coaching - it's simply self-perpetuating, whilst those not "part of the programme" are left to do their own thing and try and keep the sport going at grassroots level (whilst subject to the same regulation and demands as running a national championship). We need to make it easier and financially less risky to run events, and maybe think regionally rather than nationally at everything but Premier level.

Time for a radical rethink, and a wider debate than we can have here, or at a single meeting in Nottingham. We need more of the money made available to help run a competition structure that encourages and rewards both paddlers and organisers, whilst actually remaining fun to be involved with. As James rightly points out, simply squeezing people out of div 1 without providing a better div 2 alternative won't achieve anything other than to further develop the elite at the cost of the rest. That's not what I think sport should be about - or maybe the aim is to end up with a lucrative television contract for our Premier division and full-time professional paddlers. That's a model that doesn't seem to have endeared itself to every football club and fan in the country. It is, however, the way that sport funding in general is going, as the failure to deliver the promised legacy of "sport for all" from London 2012 clearly demonstrates.

Paddle-up and Portable Points are well-meaning attempts to overcome some of the immediate problems that we perceive, but don't, in themselves, address the underlying issues. I'm a strong supporter of change, as it makes the world go round, and I'm happy to try anything that can improve the overall enjoyment of the sport, but I have yet to see any suggestion of how the success of such changes are to be measured and reviewed! I don't think (and I'm happy to be corrected) that the PP proposals actually include anything about what will be considered a successful outcome - perhaps we should have some answers to this before starting our own "regime change". The direction of the sport appears to be being driven from outside, rather than inside, and the needs of those that matter most (the ones who take part) somewhat neglected in the pursuit of glory. Unfortunately, I'm not offering any solutions of my own at this stage - I think we need to discuss and understand what we actually want our sport to deliver first. Our executive should engage us all in a wide-ranging debate that isn't limited to those who have the time and energy to populate bulletin boards. How do we get the message out?

[djberriman]

I think the best way to improve div 2 is go back to 5 divisions so the water levels can be made more consistent. Div 2 varies far too much and the drop from Div 1 to the current Div 2 would indeed make many leave. An extra division between div 2 and div 1 (with the top end div 2 races and the bottom end div 1 races used) would allow for more consistent levels in all divisions and perhaps keep everyone happy.

Sadly paddlers do and have in many circumstances avoided the bigger water. I well remember racing at Tully Div 1/2 with just 13 div 2 paddlers when the weeks before we'd had 70 odd to race against.

One problem with harder div 2 events is getting a full entry to make the event viable. Div 1's are viable, sometimes needing an enhanced entry fee. Div 2's pay approx. half that of Div 1 paddlers so you'd need twice as many entries to paddle the same water. That is impossible in terms of entries required and time to run the event.

Les looked at running a Div 2 at Tees but even with the money on offer from the Slalom Comittee it would have made a huge loss (off the top of my head something like £1000).

The problem is many of the bigger water sites don't allow catering to be run which helps enormously with the costs and they are often more expensive to use.

Add to that less clubs/volunteers willing to run events (Town Falls, Abbey Rapids anyone?). Would be nice to see come new clubs/faces organising events as we can't expect the current organisers to keep taking more and more on. Perhaps the Slalom Committee/BC need to focus on developing new events with new clubs/volunteers, there are plenty who will help/offer advice to get people going.

[Canadian Paddler]

This proposal was withdrawn as the Portable Points proposal was adopted