Open Divisions

[Nick Penfold]

Here is another option for the future. Fancy discussing it?

There are a lot of events on the calendar, yet few available to any one paddler. Prems have a maximum of 9 races, in short periods of the spring and autumn. Div 1s are better served if they are willing to travel. There are a lot of Div 2 and Div 3 events, but few of the paddlers will travel far.

This year the unofficial Prem rankings were put on a “rolling” basis - counting the best five results over the past 52 weeks. This is more meaningful, but can’t be extended beyond Prem - there are too many promotions in the mix. Some sort of “portable” points would allow rolling rankings to be applied in all divisions.

As things stand, you can end the year on the brink of promotion and have to start from scratch next year. Given “rolling” points, you could carry your best results forward and perhaps win promotion early the next year.

In a nutshell, we suggest:

- Divisions, Prem, Div 1, Div 2, Div 3 and Div 4 retained.

- Events at one of four degrees of difficulty, based on the water, the course and the competition, and offering different levels of maximum points.

- All races open to paddlers from other divisions. Paddlers could race at any event “down” from their own division and one level “up”.

- All paddlers in a class would compete for the points, but the prizes would go to the best paddlers in the event's target divisions.

- Points totals based on each paddler’s "rolling" best five results, but promotion targets for Div 2 and Div 3 paddlers would be achievable within four races.

More detail at http://www.canoeslalom.co.uk/committee/ ... 20v2.1.doc

[ringorayner]

At first glance this seems to be a great improvement on the last proposal - retaining much of what's good about the existing system whilst introducing new concepts designed to make things better and easier. Gets my vote! Though I'm sure that greater minds than me will soon be suggesting all sorts of reasons why it's not as good as it first seems!! Well done for responding to the many previous - and sometimes conflicting - comments in a thoughtful and constructive way

[BaldockBabe]

I still do not see how this addresses the issues it purports to address and I think it will drive many out of the sport. Why would I want to pay £18 + for a single event where I can't get more than 500 points and a bunch of Prems who (according to the theory on the other thread don't want to do judges runs) cone along for "race training" and take away points. It is an expensive route to nowhere. I may as well flog my slalom boats, resign from the timing team and get better value for money and more water time travelling to Dartmoor and running real rivers for a weekend.

Perhaps some of the suggestions on the other thread that actually try and address the prported issues should be looked at rather than these attempts to satisfy a few people that think themselves beyond judges runs (as this is the only one of the purported issues that this appears to address).

[oldschool]

Events need judges!

if we have a completely open system who will judge?

Part of my development as a junior was going to higher division events and judging to get experience on harder courses and water. Did I miss a trick?

Also this will completely remove a lot of the attraction to certain races, where you'd only get 1/2 points! and get smashed by any of the local prems anyway.

This fails to address almost all of the issues raised on previous discussions. BAD IDEA, sorry.

[Veronica]

As a non paddling parent of a div 1 child I like the current divisional system where races are aimed at the ability of paddlers in that division. Allowing paddlers to enter races one division up is aready catered for under paddles up where they can compete and do not steal points in that division. Can the paddles up scheme not be modified so that if you beat 40% of paddlers you get 1000 points for the divion you are in?

I do not like the suggestion that div 1 races would no longer all be based on a maximum of 1000 points. Why would anyone want to pay £29 for a double event for half the points let alone drive hundreds of miles to get there! I would not have wanted to drive 8 hours to Llanydsul for half points.

I have been going to slalom races for 4 years now (driving many miles) and do not have a problem with the current divisional system nor know anyone that has. Why does it need to change? Is it not possible to trail a new system before scrapping what is currently there which many people have no problem with?

[jake s]

i like this suggestion. The only part i dont agree with is having the degrees of difficulty affecting the points you can gain. Looking at division 1 it seems to be the same people finishing in the same posistions wherever the race is, so for my money that move woulnt achieve anything. Other that that i like this suggestion

[Veronica]

Rolling rankings sound like not too bad an idea but I do not think that it is feasible to carry points between divisions following promotion/demotion therefore overall probabally unfair.

Why do people who are paddling down need points? If the prizes are only for the paddlers in the Target division then so should the points. If paddlers are "race trainning" then they don't need points. There are always offical runs available or events could also have an open class.

If a newcommer to slalom enters a div 4 race and beats all the div 3 paddlers then they obviously should not be in div 4 and could automatically be promoted to div 2.

It is confusing and unfair if all races in the same division do not have the same number of maximum points. Would entry fees be reduced to reflect the lower level of ponits available?

How would spaces for an event be allocated? What if an event became full with paddlers down/up and there was no spaces left for the target division?

I agree with Michelle that if this proposal is adopted that there is little point in continuing to be involved in slalom.

[Nicky]

As a prem paddler, I wouldn't race at a div 1, but I do judge at a fair number of races. I don't think that the standard if the course makes a material difference to the results. When town falls was judged to be too dangerous, and raced on the flat, there were no surprises.

As a junior I didn't pay to race at higher division races and wouldn't if it was an option. Judging is valuable to the sport and brilliant for progress as then people don't start ranting on when they half head a gate in prem, go acm for it and get a 50! I learnt a lot about the rules by judging alongside section judges, certainly more than reading the yearbook, yawn!

Paddling up has been a bit if a waste of time too, there have been few entries and it seems like quite an expensive game to play. I agree that 1000 points for a paddle up success would encourage more people, but the cost of racing I. The next division up certainly put me off. A double div 2 in c1 cost only fractionally more than a single div 1.

I do think that tinkering with the ranking system won't lead to a mass influx of paddlers.

I've not mentioned it previously either, but I quite like not having rolling ranking. It's much easier to track where you are. If rich or Campbell only has 4 results, I know he's coming past at the last race rather than having to work out who has points from last season to take off, then compare how they've been doing this year and see'f you're gonna stay ahead, move past. All complicated stuff. All I want to know is whether slip down the ranking list is going to be held off for another year, or have I started down the slippery slope!

Nicky

[ayres]

I am relativly new to slalom but i do not see a reason for a change. the present system works.
If a paddler doesnt want to paddle the lower divisions then judge at an event and ask for ranking using your result as a comparison. This is what i did and it meant i could start straight in div 1, use a season to get experience and now im looking forward to racing in prem.
The target of promotion was a v good motivater for me.
The only issue i would say needs addressing in slalom is the frequency of races, the cram at the begining and end of the season makes for a busy couple of months and a v quiet summer.

[Dee]

I think the principle of the revised document is good and it does keep a divisional structure whilst opening more racing opportunities:

Why would I want to pay £18 + for a single event where I can't get more than 500 points

Part of this is related to the idea that you are used to competing for 1000 points so at 500 you feel that it is half points. It's only a few years ago that smaller classes had a maximum of 100 points. So, in a sense, the number of points is arbitary.

Having said that I think the drop from 1000 at level 1 to 500 at level 2 is a little too severe; perhaps 1000, 600, 350, 200 would be better? (or even 2000, 1200, 700, 400) !

Has anyone recalculated points from this years races to see how the rankings would have looked with the point allocations proposed (although admittedly without paddle down competitors)

All races open to paddlers from other divisions. Paddlers could race at any event “down” from their own division and one level “up”.

I presume we are talking about divisions here rather than race levels. I would restrict to 2 up and 2 down for anyone in div 3 and above

I don't believe that div 4s should be able to enter anything other than a div 4 race:

• I think this is implicit in the paper though not explicitly stated
  div 4s are sufficiently new to the sport that many may not be aware just what it takes to race in slalom
  the need to consider temporary BCU membership/bibs etc at anything other than a div 4 race would be a logistical nightmare

Events at one of four degrees of difficulty, based on the water, the course and the competition, and offering different levels of maximum points.

Who sets the level and when?
Some sites are fairly clear cut, but I obviously have a vested interest in that Shepperton can probably hit the full level range. We may plan a div 1/2 at level 2 or div 3/4 at level 4, but as this year testifies the water might have other ideas.

• Can a level be up/down graded on the day by the jury or in the run-up by the organiser?
  Can it be up/down graded beyond the normal range for the targetted divisions?
  If a level is changed can paddlers cancel their entry (administrative headache)

if we have a completely open system who will judge

The rules allow the organiser to require paddlers to judge whether they like it or not. I think we might have to enforce this rule a tad more often, but in most cases I don't think it will make much difference. Although there are a few races (noticably Prem races) where judges volunteer specifically to get a run, for most events there is a good deal more arm twisting. In my own experience the vast majority of those that judge at our events could probably be persuaded to do so even if they are competing in the main race.

However, at the moment we have section judges at prem and div 1 races; if we have these paddlers competing at lower divisions will we need section judges throughout? and will we need to revise protest fees?

How would spaces for an event be allocated? What if an event became full with paddlers down/up and there was no spaces left for the target division?

I think target division paddlers would take priority up to 2 weeks before the event (1 week for div 3 and 3/4 races). At div 3/4 races a maximum figure would be set only for div 3 (and paddle-downs), div 4s would not be affected so could enter on the day with ease

[Nick Penfold]

Having said that I think the drop from 1000 at level 1 to 500 at level 2 is a little too severe; perhaps 1000, 600, 350, 200 would be better? (or even 2000, 1200, 700, 400)

Probably the opposite is true, Dee. It's not so much the difficulty of the course, it's the competition. Newly promoted Prems fresh from Div 1 do well to get 250 points at their first Prem races because they are up against very good paddlers. David Spencer's calculations suggest something more like 1000, 400, 200...
I persuaded him to 1000, 500 etc because otherwise paddling down just looks a waste of time and paddling up too tempting, even though realistically, at these levels, a paddler capable of the maximum 500 at a Div 1 would struggle to get 250 at a Prem.

See also Nicky's point: put top paddlers on the flat and they still perform.

[jke]

Events at one of four degrees of difficulty, based on the water, the course and the competition, and offering different levels of maximum points.

Who sets the level and when?
Some sites are fairly clear cut, but I obviously have a vested interest in that Shepperton can probably hit the full level range. We may plan a div 1/2 at level 2 or div 3/4 at level 4, but as this year testifies the water might have other ideas.

• Can a level be up/down graded on the day by the jury or in the run-up by the organiser?
  Can it be up/down graded beyond the normal range for the targetted divisions?
  If a level is changed can paddlers cancel their entry (administrative headache)

I know it's caveated but Langham Farm at 125 and Cardington at 250? Artificial courses are pretty consistent, Cardington is, well, Cardington. But natural rivers not so. At Langham Farm if it's flat it is easy. If the river's up it's hard for the target divisions. It seems to come up quite a lot these days. A couple of years ago I counted a quarter of all competititors swam on one of their runs over the weekend. I haven't seen that at Cardington. You don't know what the level's going to be until quite soon before the event.

And another thing. Your objective - to increase participation through increasing the number of opportunities to race. These proposals always target the established competitors, the ones in the higher divisions. It does nothing for my club. The only way you'll increase participation is to increase the number of events. Comments on clubs on HaRVey's thread looks like something which should be pursued.

[Dee]

The only way you'll increase participation is to increase the number of events

But by allowing paddlers to attend more competitions this is in fact achieved and in many ways it will be more appealing for those paddling up than down as more points are available.

[Dee]

Having said that I think the drop from 1000 at level 1 to 500 at level 2 is a little too severe; perhaps 1000, 600, 350, 200 would be better? (or even 2000, 1200, 700, 400)

Probably the opposite is true, Dee. It's not so much the difficulty of the course, it's the competition. Newly promoted Prems fresh from Div 1 do well to get 250 points at their first Prem races because they are up against very good paddlers. David Spencer's calculations suggest something more like 1000, 400, 200...
I persuaded him to 1000, 500 etc because otherwise paddling down just looks a waste of time and paddling up too tempting, even though realistically, at these levels, a paddler capable of the maximum 500 at a Div 1 would struggle to get 250 at a Prem.

See also Nicky's point: put top paddlers on the flat and they still perform.

Fair enough, makes sense to go slightly above the calcs as we should aim for the top div 1 paddler to get 400 points even when there are prems paddling down.

What about making it 2000, 1000, 500, 250 though? Psychologically it will feel better to many and should make no difference in reality; it will also allow for a better spread of points in the larger classes.

[Nick Penfold]

No objection in principle to Dee's 2000, 1000 etc scale.

By the way I don't for a moment think the proposal will generate a rush of newcomers. The aim is retention. The right strategy, whatever it is, is the one that gives paddlers most all-round satisfaction and keeps them in the sport. Lots of paddlers give slalom a try: to increase participation all we have to do is get more of them hooked.

More big clubs and more coaching are great objectives, but they don't conflict with good structure - they are all part of the ideal package. But they are also more difficult to achieve: establishing clubs takes some exceptional people out there who we can't magic into existence, and providing coaching costs money.