David Spencer has been working on a proposal to radically remodel the structure of slalom. You might react (as I did) "it ain’t broke, why fix it?" But think about it. The truth is that, at lower division levels at least, our system doesn’t work all that well, and we are not recruiting and developing paddlers in the numbers we should. Maybe the rigidity of our divisional structure is part of the problem.
In a nutshell, here is the proposal:
Each class (K1M, K1W etc.) would have a single ranking list including all ranked paddlers, from the top of today’s Premier Division down to newly ranked competitors.
Races would be targeted at three or four broad levels of ability: perhaps (in K1M terms) the top 100 or so, the next 200, the remaining 300, and newcomers.
The points awarded would reflect the relative difficulty of the site and the course configuration. "Rolling" rankings would be based on each paddler’s best 5 results in the previous 52 weeks, continuously reflecting a paddler's "true" ranking position. There would be no promotion or demotion, just movement on the ranking list.
In theory any paddler could enter any race, but paddlers will find their own level and attend events appropriately - what they prefer, and where they can get the best points.
There are lots of little details to think through, which is why I don’t think this can happen until the year after next, but let’s talk about it.
The Structure of Slalom
Re: The Structure of Slalom
Interesting. I like the rolling points across 52 weeks bit as it does allow for late season success and importantly for injury recovery. Many of our younger paddlers have to miss races for educational reasons or university commitments beyond their control and it would be good to take the pressure off by allowing success to roll over to the next season. This structure would also allow for up and coming paddlers to try out courses at the next level. Too often paddlers move up to the next division without having tackled more difficult water and therefore get a big shock! I would like a bit more information about the proposed new structure before I can really make my mind up.
Re: The Structure of Slalom
Sounds like an excellent idea. If I understand correctly, under this new structure, myself (a prem paddler) would not be restricted to only racing the 9 Prem races per year? Of which there are none in the summer.
(If you are thinking that I should be a judge, then you obviously have no idea what the people in the sport actually want).
"If it ain't broke don't fix it" isn't the way our sport should be thinking. We should be thinking "we can do better".
This exactly what John Sturgess has been "banging on about" for the last 5 or more years!?
Lets stop talking about it and do something different!
p.s Check out www.canoeslalomworld.com
(If you are thinking that I should be a judge, then you obviously have no idea what the people in the sport actually want).
"If it ain't broke don't fix it" isn't the way our sport should be thinking. We should be thinking "we can do better".
This exactly what John Sturgess has been "banging on about" for the last 5 or more years!?
Lets stop talking about it and do something different!
p.s Check out www.canoeslalomworld.com
Re: The Structure of Slalom
"it ain’t broke, why fix it?" should be the slalom committee motto.
I like anything that allows more people to race, unlike the 2/3/4 issue that we (at vkc) are fighting against at the moment.
I like anything that allows more people to race, unlike the 2/3/4 issue that we (at vkc) are fighting against at the moment.
Re: The Structure of Slalom
I like what we have now. I din't think that it is anything to do with the ranking system preventing people entering our sport. It is a limited number of people working hard to get new people in. If we had more of the isolated pockets. It wouldn't matter what system was in place. Our sport is fantastic, and I like a ranking system that says woo hoo I'm in the next division. Or woo hoo, I've won my first div 4, not congratulations you were 124th out of 132, that's quite good considering you are new. Next year you should be aiming for the top 95. I struggle to see how an open system can provide the same incremental markers of achievement and ability to set targets. It is really easy as a coach to say, you should be aiming for div1 etc etc etc
Re: The Structure of Slalom
I also like it as it is, and agree that if the issue is about bringing in and keeping more paddlers I don't think it's the rankng system that's the issue. If the change is to bring improvement, I guess I'd ask improvement for whom? Does it really allow more paddlers to race? And what is really stopping them race (maybe it's money and time and other commitments!?). Prem paddlers can still paddle in other races (yes, to judge, but we need judges!) and younger paddlers also get experience of higher divisions by judging or (this year) 'paddling up'.
Our kids both enjoyed working out the points, getting nearer to the next division and setting those goals that were achievable within a reasonable timeframe, plus getting the certificates etc. I am not particularly keen on the rolling ranking over 52 weeks for the newer promotee (maybe I'm a spoilsport - I can see others like it) as it's more difficult to see recent improvement in the ranking points - the season for prem seems to be split into two anyway.
Progression yes, but maybe there other things that may need bringing up to speed before the ranking system (timing systems, volunteering, judging, proactive recruitment strategies etc)
Our kids both enjoyed working out the points, getting nearer to the next division and setting those goals that were achievable within a reasonable timeframe, plus getting the certificates etc. I am not particularly keen on the rolling ranking over 52 weeks for the newer promotee (maybe I'm a spoilsport - I can see others like it) as it's more difficult to see recent improvement in the ranking points - the season for prem seems to be split into two anyway.
Progression yes, but maybe there other things that may need bringing up to speed before the ranking system (timing systems, volunteering, judging, proactive recruitment strategies etc)
-
paddlersGDB
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:41 pm
Re: The Structure of Slalom
Although it is good to look at the way a system works to make improvements I am not convinced that this is necessarily the correct way of going about it.
I would be concerned that rather than encourage paddlers to take up and remain in the sport a new rolling ranking system would actually put them off. This is because as one of the responses suggests, paddlers from any level could enter any race. The higher up the rankings you are, the more likely you are to win. This would surely put off lower ranked, less experienced competitors who would have no chance of ever winning anything against the possibly much higher ranked competition.
In addition to this I am not sure how you would attract paddlers to be judges if they can compete in any race anyway. Only top level competitions have official judges and other races rely upon paddlers from other divisions to help out for a chance to have a run at the course. How would this operate when there are no divisions?
I would be concerned that rather than encourage paddlers to take up and remain in the sport a new rolling ranking system would actually put them off. This is because as one of the responses suggests, paddlers from any level could enter any race. The higher up the rankings you are, the more likely you are to win. This would surely put off lower ranked, less experienced competitors who would have no chance of ever winning anything against the possibly much higher ranked competition.
In addition to this I am not sure how you would attract paddlers to be judges if they can compete in any race anyway. Only top level competitions have official judges and other races rely upon paddlers from other divisions to help out for a chance to have a run at the course. How would this operate when there are no divisions?
-
Haggis Hunter
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:17 pm
Re: The Structure of Slalom
I agree with the 3 previous posts. The current system allows a youngster (or anyone) to easily see how they are developing compared to their peers and to set realistic attainable goals in training.
In the proposed system, points are to be awarded depending on the water and course difficulty? How could this be uniformly graded? As we have seen this year alone, rivers can change dramatically overnight making what would have been a simple race much more of a challange, but how do we consistantly measure that. It's really hard to compare 1 river against another in terms of awarding points. How do we manage skilled experienced paddlers entering easier venues to gain easy points?
I think this system potentially would demoralise new recruits, as it is likely beginners would not be winning any prizes for a long time, promoting a sense of failure. Success breeds success and while recruitment is an issue we don't want to be in a position where we can't retain the paddlers we do have.
I don't think this is the way to recruit into the sport. More work needs to be done on providing access into the sport via local clubs, who require support with coaching and equipment. There are a few clubs in the uk for whom this works well but there are many smaller clubs ,who with a bit of support, could be helped to develop stronger slalom sections within their club.
In the proposed system, points are to be awarded depending on the water and course difficulty? How could this be uniformly graded? As we have seen this year alone, rivers can change dramatically overnight making what would have been a simple race much more of a challange, but how do we consistantly measure that. It's really hard to compare 1 river against another in terms of awarding points. How do we manage skilled experienced paddlers entering easier venues to gain easy points?
I think this system potentially would demoralise new recruits, as it is likely beginners would not be winning any prizes for a long time, promoting a sense of failure. Success breeds success and while recruitment is an issue we don't want to be in a position where we can't retain the paddlers we do have.
I don't think this is the way to recruit into the sport. More work needs to be done on providing access into the sport via local clubs, who require support with coaching and equipment. There are a few clubs in the uk for whom this works well but there are many smaller clubs ,who with a bit of support, could be helped to develop stronger slalom sections within their club.
Re: The Structure of Slalom
I agree with Nicky. There may be a better structure for our sport, but that is not the reason we aren't getting numbers at the bottom end. What the sport needs is lots of slalom clubs with dedicated coaches - something else John Sturgess has been banging on about for a long time. No-one should live more than 1/2 hour drive from their local training site - this is something I have felt for a long time, but when I voiced it I was told it was "unrealistic". This was by someone high up on the committee. We have absolutely no problem finding kids (and adults) at Manchester who want to race slalom, our problem is handling them all!
We need to stop fiddling with the ranking system, and get down to sorting the real problem out. It is embarrassing that Manchester is the only real slalom club in the whole of the North West.
We need to stop fiddling with the ranking system, and get down to sorting the real problem out. It is embarrassing that Manchester is the only real slalom club in the whole of the North West.
-
BaldockBabe
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:55 am
Re: The Structure of Slalom
I would like to see the full proposals but I do agree that the divisional system does allow for people to set their own goals and gives people (young and old) something to aim for.
If we are looking at barriers to recruitment into the sport should we be looking at things from a very basic level? I was chatting to some guys at Lee Valley on Saturday and they were interested in giving slalom a try but a) didn't know how and b) were obviously competent paddlers that did not need to start in Div 4. Although I gave them info about this website (which is our best source of info even if "unofficial") and about applying for ranking I doubt they will give it a try.
Why?
1. People wanting to give a sport a try want to be able to do so in as simple a way as possible. Suggesting that they do a judges run at an event to find out if they are at that level is complicated (how do you enter as a judge etc?) and daunting (judging at an event I have never done before - yes, we know that judging doesn't necessarily mean judging but they don't).
2. Applying directly for ranking. That has to be done in advance. People wanting to try a new sport don't want to go through loops to give it a try.
I am not sure how we can fully resolve this but thoughts include:
a. Allowing people new to the sport to enter into events (Div 1 and below) on the day - they can then pop along to their local event and give it a go without having to think in advance and without having to judge/ help.
b. Make this at a minimum cost - we are trying to attact new people. One event at a "try it" cost will not break the bank for us as a sport but may attract someone new.
c. If that person beats 40% in the division they are put straight into that division. If they beat 20% of the division they go into the division below.
d. For the purposes of points that person does not count (as with a paddle up) but if they are subsequently put into that division they will get given the points of the nearest competitior (calculated as with VET points) - so yes, two competitors will have the same points from the same event.
The way I see it this does not disadvantage those currently in the divisional system but may attract more people. Espcially say if advertised on UKRGB and with local clubs.
The next step is retaining people in slalom once in.
Currently the set up is great if you go to a good slalom club (e.g. Manchester, CR Cats, Bredalbane, S&S, Proteus) but not great if you go to a general club. Those at a slalom club get enough assistance to get to Div 1/2 level and then have a chance of being picked up by one of the development squads (if you are a junior).
However, if you are at a general club and have no club support there is no "back up" available in our system. Perhaps the thought is that this should be done at a club level but that is not always possible (trust me, I tried with Baldock and others have tried with St Albans etc). We can't expect every club in the country to support slalom but every club in the country is capable of producing good paddlers. We need a system which can pick up the "waifes and strays" from these clubs (like John Sturgess and Kate Kent did for the likes of Aaron, Jackie, Anna-Louise and I) and turn them into good slalomists.
If we are looking at barriers to recruitment into the sport should we be looking at things from a very basic level? I was chatting to some guys at Lee Valley on Saturday and they were interested in giving slalom a try but a) didn't know how and b) were obviously competent paddlers that did not need to start in Div 4. Although I gave them info about this website (which is our best source of info even if "unofficial") and about applying for ranking I doubt they will give it a try.
Why?
1. People wanting to give a sport a try want to be able to do so in as simple a way as possible. Suggesting that they do a judges run at an event to find out if they are at that level is complicated (how do you enter as a judge etc?) and daunting (judging at an event I have never done before - yes, we know that judging doesn't necessarily mean judging but they don't).
2. Applying directly for ranking. That has to be done in advance. People wanting to try a new sport don't want to go through loops to give it a try.
I am not sure how we can fully resolve this but thoughts include:
a. Allowing people new to the sport to enter into events (Div 1 and below) on the day - they can then pop along to their local event and give it a go without having to think in advance and without having to judge/ help.
b. Make this at a minimum cost - we are trying to attact new people. One event at a "try it" cost will not break the bank for us as a sport but may attract someone new.
c. If that person beats 40% in the division they are put straight into that division. If they beat 20% of the division they go into the division below.
d. For the purposes of points that person does not count (as with a paddle up) but if they are subsequently put into that division they will get given the points of the nearest competitior (calculated as with VET points) - so yes, two competitors will have the same points from the same event.
The way I see it this does not disadvantage those currently in the divisional system but may attract more people. Espcially say if advertised on UKRGB and with local clubs.
The next step is retaining people in slalom once in.
Currently the set up is great if you go to a good slalom club (e.g. Manchester, CR Cats, Bredalbane, S&S, Proteus) but not great if you go to a general club. Those at a slalom club get enough assistance to get to Div 1/2 level and then have a chance of being picked up by one of the development squads (if you are a junior).
However, if you are at a general club and have no club support there is no "back up" available in our system. Perhaps the thought is that this should be done at a club level but that is not always possible (trust me, I tried with Baldock and others have tried with St Albans etc). We can't expect every club in the country to support slalom but every club in the country is capable of producing good paddlers. We need a system which can pick up the "waifes and strays" from these clubs (like John Sturgess and Kate Kent did for the likes of Aaron, Jackie, Anna-Louise and I) and turn them into good slalomists.
-
BaldockBabe
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:55 am
Re: The Structure of Slalom
I was typing my post while you were posting yours.davebrads wrote: We need to stop fiddling with the ranking system, and get down to sorting the real problem out. It is embarrassing that Manchester is the only real slalom club in the whole of the North West.
My nearest "slalom" club is 1 hour away (Proteus) and my nearest white water is 30 mins away (Lee Valley). Between them I have other good clubs like Viking, Baldock and St Albans. We can't expect those clubs to become "slalom clubs" but what we can expect is at a national level provide "mop-up" coaching for those who are members of other clubs but want help and encouragement to do slalom.
Re: The Structure of Slalom
Why can't these other clubs become slalom clubs? I don't mean exclusively slalom, Manchester certainly isn't like that, but a club with a site with permanent slalom gates, or at least gates that can be set in a few minutes, and a coach.
National level coaching is all well and good, but if we are to get more paddlers in at the bottom they need to have regular access to train near their home, and even the regional initiatives launched a couple of years ago haven't addressed this. This means that we need to have slalom coaches based at these clubs.
I don't think retention is that major a problem, not once you have got paddlers to division 2 level anyway. By that time they have already made quite a commitment to the sport and are likely to continue, unless they start to feel that they are disadvantaged in some way by lack of facilities and opportunities. Below division 2 we have a lot of paddlers who have given the sport a go, and haven't found it to their liking, or else they aren't prepared to make the commitment in time and resources to be able to continue up the rankings. I can't see that changing the ranking structure is going to change this too much.
National level coaching is all well and good, but if we are to get more paddlers in at the bottom they need to have regular access to train near their home, and even the regional initiatives launched a couple of years ago haven't addressed this. This means that we need to have slalom coaches based at these clubs.
I don't think retention is that major a problem, not once you have got paddlers to division 2 level anyway. By that time they have already made quite a commitment to the sport and are likely to continue, unless they start to feel that they are disadvantaged in some way by lack of facilities and opportunities. Below division 2 we have a lot of paddlers who have given the sport a go, and haven't found it to their liking, or else they aren't prepared to make the commitment in time and resources to be able to continue up the rankings. I can't see that changing the ranking structure is going to change this too much.
What were the obstacles you faced? This is where the real problem lies, and where our efforts should be directed.BaldockBabe wrote:trust me, I tried with Baldock and others have tried with St Albans etc
-
BaldockBabe
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:55 am
Re: The Structure of Slalom
There were a few issues:davebrads wrote:What were the obstacles you faced? This is where the real problem lies, and where our efforts should be directed.BaldockBabe wrote:trust me, I tried with Baldock and others have tried with St Albans etc
1. Lack of coaches. In our region we have not had a regional coach to fall back on. I would love to do my slalom coaching module but I am not willing to jump through the Level 1 coaching hoops to get there. Those I know who are Level 1 coaches are not interested in slalom.
2. Lack of role models. If you have some strong role models in a club that can help inspire others.
3. Lack of progression. As a non coach I could get people to the lower end of Div 2 but had no one either within the club or regionally to then pass them on to.
Clubs like Baldock and St Albans are pool based. They don't have a training ground like Manchester, Proteus, Stafford & Stone, Viking. That means that any slalom training in a limited sized pool detracts from others doing whatever it is they want to do. Thus any slalom training is limited to a portion of the pool or would involve travelling. People won't start to travel to train until they are at a certian level. Introducing another pool session is expensive and until you have a critical mass of interested paddlers is not financially viable.
-
upthecreek
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:58 pm
Re: The Structure of Slalom
I'd like to get back to the initial question, and as a general "dogsbody"
viewing from a support point of view I don't know (as another previous reply pointed out),
how would the Judging side function at competitions and how do you encourage volunteers to
do this if you change the structure?
There is also the scenario that "Prem" paddlers can look impressive by smashing all
records if they can turn up to any open competition potentially totally demoralising brand new
inexperienced paddlers with their technique and super times which could have the negative affect of actually
frightening them off!
The encouraging aspect we currently have is you can see a goal of being promoted if you perform within your division.
I have first hand experience of someone coming up "through the ranks" from the bottom division
the last few years and witnessed the sense of achievement of this young person being promoted to the next level.
He is now in Prem, but the realisation is that as he knows he must "up the ante" to achieve.
He is young and ambitious and is now in a division where he realises every milisecond is
important and the quality of technique counts.
I'm not sure how you keep those ambitious competitors happy at that end of the scale, if it is open for all.
I am also aware that when a paddler gets older then they eventually move down the scale and I think that's
the price you pay in any competitive sport as you go down a division one by one...that also happens
in other sports...
How to Encourage Young People to Join the Sport
I am a firm believer in "Open Days, taster sessions" - Free to try for a couple of weeks etc etc
You need the volunteers to do this but with the great Olympics we have had - surely it sells itself!!
As and example, I witnessed one recently at HPPCC at a recent competition it also held a "try it" day
and the lake was full of young kids trying it for the first time thanks to some very proactive parents and trained adults.
That is proof that it can be achieved without the need of total restructure...
upthecreek
viewing from a support point of view I don't know (as another previous reply pointed out),
how would the Judging side function at competitions and how do you encourage volunteers to
do this if you change the structure?
There is also the scenario that "Prem" paddlers can look impressive by smashing all
records if they can turn up to any open competition potentially totally demoralising brand new
inexperienced paddlers with their technique and super times which could have the negative affect of actually
frightening them off!
The encouraging aspect we currently have is you can see a goal of being promoted if you perform within your division.
I have first hand experience of someone coming up "through the ranks" from the bottom division
the last few years and witnessed the sense of achievement of this young person being promoted to the next level.
He is now in Prem, but the realisation is that as he knows he must "up the ante" to achieve.
He is young and ambitious and is now in a division where he realises every milisecond is
important and the quality of technique counts.
I'm not sure how you keep those ambitious competitors happy at that end of the scale, if it is open for all.
I am also aware that when a paddler gets older then they eventually move down the scale and I think that's
the price you pay in any competitive sport as you go down a division one by one...that also happens
in other sports...
How to Encourage Young People to Join the Sport
I am a firm believer in "Open Days, taster sessions" - Free to try for a couple of weeks etc etc
You need the volunteers to do this but with the great Olympics we have had - surely it sells itself!!
As and example, I witnessed one recently at HPPCC at a recent competition it also held a "try it" day
and the lake was full of young kids trying it for the first time thanks to some very proactive parents and trained adults.
That is proof that it can be achieved without the need of total restructure...
upthecreek
Re: The Structure of Slalom
In reply to BaldockBabe
1 - lack of coaches. You have identified a problem - to do the slalom module there is a requirement to be a level 1 coach. There is a lot of good stuff in the level 1 course, but I suspect the problem lies in the prerequisites, i.e. having to be a 2 star paddler (if I am wrong, let me know). The star syllabus is almost totally irrelevent to slalom - slalom is a moving water sport, there is no point in learning flat water skills (if you can call them "skills" at all). Why not separate the slalom coaching awards from the BCU awards altogether, is this something that the committee could look at? In the meantime, is there not an option for you to do the slalom module without being a level 1 coach? You might not get a qualification but you will learn some good stuff, and anyway, what is the value of a piece of paper? I was coaching long before I got my qualifications, the only reason I got qualified was to help the club get top club status, and consequently greater success at attracting grants.
2 - lack of role models. A problem, but not a deal killer. When I started the junior slalom squad at Manchester I was the best paddler left at the club following a long decline at the club, and I don't make much of a role model!
3. - lack of progression. This is important, and is probably down to getting a critical mass within the region. So it has to be preceded by a programme of introducing and encouraging slalom in other clubs in the region. It doesn't have to be driven by the national squad coaches - for a long time before the regional coaches came in S&SCC operated pretty much as a regional centre of excellence for the West Midlands, picking up paddlers from various clubs in the region including Shropshire (I think that is where the Tatchells started out?) and Mold, and even a couple of paddlers from Manchester.
1 - lack of coaches. You have identified a problem - to do the slalom module there is a requirement to be a level 1 coach. There is a lot of good stuff in the level 1 course, but I suspect the problem lies in the prerequisites, i.e. having to be a 2 star paddler (if I am wrong, let me know). The star syllabus is almost totally irrelevent to slalom - slalom is a moving water sport, there is no point in learning flat water skills (if you can call them "skills" at all). Why not separate the slalom coaching awards from the BCU awards altogether, is this something that the committee could look at? In the meantime, is there not an option for you to do the slalom module without being a level 1 coach? You might not get a qualification but you will learn some good stuff, and anyway, what is the value of a piece of paper? I was coaching long before I got my qualifications, the only reason I got qualified was to help the club get top club status, and consequently greater success at attracting grants.
2 - lack of role models. A problem, but not a deal killer. When I started the junior slalom squad at Manchester I was the best paddler left at the club following a long decline at the club, and I don't make much of a role model!
3. - lack of progression. This is important, and is probably down to getting a critical mass within the region. So it has to be preceded by a programme of introducing and encouraging slalom in other clubs in the region. It doesn't have to be driven by the national squad coaches - for a long time before the regional coaches came in S&SCC operated pretty much as a regional centre of excellence for the West Midlands, picking up paddlers from various clubs in the region including Shropshire (I think that is where the Tatchells started out?) and Mold, and even a couple of paddlers from Manchester.
These are worthless without some kind of coaching structure behind them, most paddlers will come out of a taster session looking for where to go next, and unless the club can offer a pathway they will find something else to do with their time. We have discussed taster sessions at Manchester, but have concluded that we are getting as many paddlers as we can deal with anyway.upthecreek wrote:I am a firm believer in "Open Days, taster sessions"