C1W Team - Congrats and Query

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:27 pm

Congratulations to those that have made the C1W team.

Out of curiosity (fortunately I'm not a cat) does anyone know how the selection was calculated. The announcement refers to 11th and 12th but I can't work out how those results (on their own) led to the selected team.

As I say I'm just curious to know how these things work as I have no axe to grind whatsoever.

Slow Paddler · Post by **Slow Paddler** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:51 pm

Mallory was paddling Div 2/3 C1w so her results aren't with the others, but would have put her 2nd on both Sat & Sun if in Prem/1.

Mr Munchkin · Post by **Mr Munchkin** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:26 pm

I was wondering the same thing! Even with Mallory's results (which were fab, she is a natural!) how were the places calculated?

Mr Munchkin · Post by **Mr Munchkin** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:27 pm

Oops, these posts are from Munchkin, I didn't realise Mr Munchkin was logged in

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:36 pm

Just think Munchkin, you could have said all sorts of contentious things and then denied responsibility!

canoebabe88 · Post by **canoebabe88** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:33 pm

Well that was a topic that was raised at the start of Washburn between the 3 original C1W.

It apears they have just gone on the results from Saturday as they were the results they wanted to see.

Anne · Post by **Anne** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:07 am

Well that is an infammatory remark if ever there was one! Selection was based on BOTH races on percentages achieved.

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:51 am

What is meant by percentages achieved - I've always been puzzled by this in the selection stuff. Percentage of what and when.

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:19 pm

infammatory

Thats MY sort of typing, an interesting mix between inflammatory, and defamatory

Anyone fancy a job a selector? Guaranteed lots of second guessing, 50/50 chance of being right or wrong, depending on who you talk to not on the quality of the decision making.

Even when factors are published they were obviously wrong.

Out of pure noseyness I would love to see the points calculations and percentage calculations. Guess If I want those I will have to do the sums myself.

Percentage is calculated in relation to the winning men's kayak. This is then compared to a table that compares International scores in the class to those of the winning Men's kayak. It is aimed at providing a deterministic view of the probable performance internationally, i.e. if ON AVERAGE a score that is 110% of the winning Men's kayak score gets you into a final for men's surfboard, then if you manage 110% of the winning men's kayak score in selection, you have as much chance of a final as top men's kayak.

Please do not blame me for this, I know that performance is affected by the sort of water, the syle of course and so on AND that although a percentage can be calculated, where the cut off is set is difficult, especially when trying to develop a class etc. etc.

It was introduced to try to remove some of the subjectiveness from selection. There has always been a clause about 'of international standard', anyone fancy defining that? This was a way to make it objective. If you meet the published percentage in x out of y races you ARE of an international standard, no argument. If you do not 'make the percentages' then it there is still some room to discuss the affect of the course/river, so there is some subjectivity left.

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:50 pm

Cor Blimey

I should have asked this question a couple of years back. I've always wondered what this 110% is about. Now I know - or at least I think I do if I've understood correctly!

oldschool · Post by **oldschool** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:52 pm

"It was introduced to try to remove some of the subjectiveness from selection."

I thought it was brought in around 97/98/99 as a way of defining who got what funding back when world class first kicked off. If you were in the top 6 boats you made the team but only those who were within 106% got funded. It seems that the slalom committee adopted this for all sorts of other things while I was away!!:D

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:17 pm

Not sure whether I've understood this properly as averages don't seem to be used.

I'm assuming that I only look at the best run time on each day and calculate that as a percentage of the best K1 mens time.

For each paddler I calculated the average percentage across the two days - this doesn't work, so looking again, I realised that we seem to take the best percentage for each contender.

Since the concept is about averages why don't we average the percentages for the two days. Is it because we normally just take the best run? Is this the way we normally do it - ie go for the best percentage? ???

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:24 pm

Welllllll, the way I calculate the points/percentages:
Name Sat% Sun% Sat pt Sun Pt Tot
Fiona Pennie 114.3% 122.2% 10 10 20
Mallory Franklin 128.7% 128.7% 9 9 18
Alice Spencer 131.0% 237.3% 8 6 14
Georgina Preston 177.0% 232.1% 5 7 12
Kate Kent 192.6% 172.8% 4 8 12
Heather Slater 153.9% 270.7% 6 5 11
Jacqueline Shaw 135.2% 7 0 7

If we take 150% as the 'interntional standard', then Fionna and Mallory made the percentage both days, and Alice and Jacqueline made the percentage on Saturday. 'Making the Percentage' is a one hit, as long as you do it in selection you have reached the standard a bit like runnign a particular time to qualify for the Olympics.

Looking at aselection points, assuming that it was two races, not Saturday and each run on Sunday (an interesting twistfor main selection), we have the selected three as the top points scorers, with Kate and Georgia equal in fourth, Heather sixth. Jacqueline, being too sick (iI am told) to paddle Sunday then was last.
If points were allocated fo each run on Sunday, I still make it the same top four, with Kate fourth and Heather/Georgina joint fifth. (well with me calculating based on the web results).

So we could imagine the selectors looking at the points and percentages. Fiona Pennie, Mallory Franklin , Alice Spencer were first second and third over the series, and all made the percentages at least once. So it would seem a relatively easy decision on who is in the team.

Only one other paddler 'made the percentages' but was not well enough to compete on the second day, so awarding her a 'wild card' as non paddling reserve offers the best chance of having a complete team.

So by my calculations, I would have made the same selection, but might have published points and percentages as the criteria were (quite reasonably) not published in advance.

I still believe my memory, that the percentages were brought in for international standard rather than funding purposes. But as I get older, who knows?

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:56 pm

Thanks CP, now you have explained it in that way it makes more sense to me! Hope it has helped the others too...

chauffeur · Post by **chauffeur** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:14 pm

Succees in German Open. Mallory and Jacquelyn both paddled in the final under floodlight. Jacquelyn got a 3rd place medal.
Hopefully this will encourage others to try C1W and the training days.