As promised during the discussion before the ACM last year I have been looking at possible changes to how promotion works to try and encourage people to compete on bigger water before they are promoted to that level.
I would reiterate that I firmly believe that it is the job of the coaches, the competitors (and, where relevant, their parents) to ensure that they are ready for the next level. I am undecided as to whether changes should come from the "powers that be" or from within the coaching system, however, during the discussion I did promise to think of an alternative suggestion before this year's ACM.
If you remember correctly I was not happy with the proposals (that were rejected at the ACM) as I did not believe that they would encourage participation on bigger water and would only apply to K1W. I think that people should be "rewarded" for competing at the higher level event whether they win or come last and that any changes should be applied to men and women to ensure a fair playing field (incidentally, why do K1M in Division 3 need more points for promotion than K1W and C1? Shouldn't that be levelled out?).
For simplicity I am using Division 2 as an example below (and have the spreadsheet for Division 2 K1W that I did the calculations with if anyone wants to see it) but would propose that it applies to Division 3 too.
I would suggest that the points a person gets at an event is multiplied by a factor depending on the level of the event.
For example:
Division 1/2 event - 1.05
Division 2 event - 1
Division 2/3 event - 0.95
This would mean that the winner would get:
Division 1/2 event - 105
Division 2 event - 100
Division 2/3 event - 95
This would mean (theoretically) that you could get promoted at Division 2/3 only events but would have to do very well at them (I am also assuming that a) the points required for promotion are the same as they are now and that b) 3 wins would also result in promotion, no matter what level the event).
Looking at this years results (although I do not have the results for the first Fairnilee event as they are not on the website - this would make a difference to at least 1 promotee) the following changes would occur:
Current promotions - 10
Current promotees attending Division 1/2 event - 6
Top 10 paddlers attending Division 1/2 event - 6
Revised promotions - 4
Revised promotees attending Division 1/2 event - 4
Top 10 paddlers attending Division 1/2 event - 7
I have the ability to change the multipliers if anyone wants to try any others.
Discuss...
*Clearly this is not too scientific because some of those not promoted under the revised system would have continued going to Division 2 events and may have then been promoted but I can't do much about that!!!
Promotion... - As promised
I can see where you are coming from and the idea of weighting harder events does seem to make some sense.
However, to play devils advocate - it is not always true that div 1/2s are harder than div 2s etc.
I'm pretty sure that in recent years there has been a div 2 only event at HPP on a Sat (the div 1 being on the Sunday). HPP is bigger water than most other div 2 events, but this weighting pattern doesn't reflect this.
I do think it is a start though
However, to play devils advocate - it is not always true that div 1/2s are harder than div 2s etc.
I'm pretty sure that in recent years there has been a div 2 only event at HPP on a Sat (the div 1 being on the Sunday). HPP is bigger water than most other div 2 events, but this weighting pattern doesn't reflect this.
I do think it is a start though
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
It is difficult isnt it! The same multiplier for Llandyssul and HPP? But I have not come up with a better scheme that is acceptable. The best solution must IMHO be to have BIG events (numbers) where you have to be good to get the points, and the one of results are rarer. BUT how do we get there? Turn the clock back to the seventies (when I was younger and fit) would be ideal, but impractical.
Either way, waiting for things to happen 'from on high' is not viable. They will already be doing all they can, as volunteers, for the sport. If we think otherwise, then we should stand against them. Any takers? (tumbleweed drifts across the screen. . )
Thanks for starting the debate Munchkin, sorry I cannot contribute more.
Either way, waiting for things to happen 'from on high' is not viable. They will already be doing all they can, as volunteers, for the sport. If we think otherwise, then we should stand against them. Any takers? (tumbleweed drifts across the screen. . )
Thanks for starting the debate Munchkin, sorry I cannot contribute more.
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
This is not disimilar to a suggestion that I made on another thread, except my position was to do away with with the divisional system completely but then to rank sites in terms of difficulty. This would solve the problem of Llandysul and HPP being ranked at the same level of difficulty as they obviously are not.
You would still have a national ranking system for all paddlers running from 1 to however many paddlers in that class (K1M, K1W, C1 etc.)
An argument against this system at the time was that good paddlers would be tempted to race at easy courses, e.g. Cardington, to pick up wins. Why? If you were only to get 500 points, for example for a win at Cardington as opposed to say 1,500 for a win at HPP, what possible incentive would there be for a prem ability paddler to race at the former rather than the latter, other than pot-hunting - it wouldn't give him/her a very good ranking?
In my view this also solves the problem of readiness for the water. It would allow paddlers to progress up the 'difficulty' ladder at their own pace. It would also have the added bonus from my personal point of view of allowing and old and slow div 2 paddler like me to on race sites like the Graveyard, a site currently considered 'too difficult' for div 2 paddlers, but one I know like the back of my hand.
James H
You would still have a national ranking system for all paddlers running from 1 to however many paddlers in that class (K1M, K1W, C1 etc.)
An argument against this system at the time was that good paddlers would be tempted to race at easy courses, e.g. Cardington, to pick up wins. Why? If you were only to get 500 points, for example for a win at Cardington as opposed to say 1,500 for a win at HPP, what possible incentive would there be for a prem ability paddler to race at the former rather than the latter, other than pot-hunting - it wouldn't give him/her a very good ranking?
In my view this also solves the problem of readiness for the water. It would allow paddlers to progress up the 'difficulty' ladder at their own pace. It would also have the added bonus from my personal point of view of allowing and old and slow div 2 paddler like me to on race sites like the Graveyard, a site currently considered 'too difficult' for div 2 paddlers, but one I know like the back of my hand.
James H
-
GlennRoberts
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:39 am
- Location: Manchester
I think this is a good suggestion to help people get promoted at the right time.
As an aside, related to this suggestion, in my opinion it is urgent that the slalom committee consider the implications of the lack of competition in some of the women's races; this makes it possible for inexperienced women (usually young girls) to be promoted to a level of water and competition for which they are not mentally prepared. This will lose them from the sport, further eroding competition.
My main concern is the gulf in difficulty between Div2 and Div1. In the men's divisions the number of competitors and their abilities provides time to aclimatise to the next level of challenge.
There were a lot of comments on the recent HPP Div1/Div2 event, organised by my club, linked to the level of difficultly of the courses set. I may be biased, but I believe the level of difficulty set was appropriate to the sport and adhered to existing rules/guidelines - after all this is our national water centre, and therefore nobody attending should expect it to be anything other than challenging. However I can understand the concern expressed by some paddlers that the level of difficulty risks putting some "girls" off the sport. If this is a true problem, this must be a general problem in the sport rather than in the organisation of this event.
As my job at this event was helping with rescue, I was accutely aware of the level of experience and ability of the Div2 women paddlers compared with the Div2 men; perhaps an exaggeration, but it was like "lambs to the slaughter". However there was no way this event could be set around their level, and those with the appropriate ability should not be denied a more serious challenge. I do not want to sound like I am criticising these Div2 women; they were brave and I hope they have gained confidence from the experience - any points won were well won and deserved.
I am sorry, if it upsets people by implying that the level of ability of women's divisions is not 100% equivalent to the men's divisions. I believe that treating them as the same is causing real problems; promotion too early to division 1 can effectly throw competitors out of the sport.
I am sure other solutions exist to the imbalance in competition for female competitors, but I really hope Munchin's suggestion is seriously considered, perhaps with minor modifications. It is an adjustment to the existing rules, and therefore is low risk in comparison to more radical solutions (e.g. scrapping the divisional system); it has the advantages of being totally applicable to both sexes, i.e. there is no discrimination.
Sorry if my reply reads like a rant - my daughter has the potential to be a victim of promotion too early.
As an aside, related to this suggestion, in my opinion it is urgent that the slalom committee consider the implications of the lack of competition in some of the women's races; this makes it possible for inexperienced women (usually young girls) to be promoted to a level of water and competition for which they are not mentally prepared. This will lose them from the sport, further eroding competition.
My main concern is the gulf in difficulty between Div2 and Div1. In the men's divisions the number of competitors and their abilities provides time to aclimatise to the next level of challenge.
There were a lot of comments on the recent HPP Div1/Div2 event, organised by my club, linked to the level of difficultly of the courses set. I may be biased, but I believe the level of difficulty set was appropriate to the sport and adhered to existing rules/guidelines - after all this is our national water centre, and therefore nobody attending should expect it to be anything other than challenging. However I can understand the concern expressed by some paddlers that the level of difficulty risks putting some "girls" off the sport. If this is a true problem, this must be a general problem in the sport rather than in the organisation of this event.
As my job at this event was helping with rescue, I was accutely aware of the level of experience and ability of the Div2 women paddlers compared with the Div2 men; perhaps an exaggeration, but it was like "lambs to the slaughter". However there was no way this event could be set around their level, and those with the appropriate ability should not be denied a more serious challenge. I do not want to sound like I am criticising these Div2 women; they were brave and I hope they have gained confidence from the experience - any points won were well won and deserved.
I am sorry, if it upsets people by implying that the level of ability of women's divisions is not 100% equivalent to the men's divisions. I believe that treating them as the same is causing real problems; promotion too early to division 1 can effectly throw competitors out of the sport.
I am sure other solutions exist to the imbalance in competition for female competitors, but I really hope Munchin's suggestion is seriously considered, perhaps with minor modifications. It is an adjustment to the existing rules, and therefore is low risk in comparison to more radical solutions (e.g. scrapping the divisional system); it has the advantages of being totally applicable to both sexes, i.e. there is no discrimination.
Sorry if my reply reads like a rant - my daughter has the potential to be a victim of promotion too early.
-
GreenPeter
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:33 pm
- Location: Peterborough
Good idea Munchkin, perhaps increase the number of points needed for promotion as well.
How about this for an un-reasonable idea that applies to both sexes;
Everything is in the hands of the paddler.
You know you have entered “insert big water course of your choice” , go and practise there before the event if possible or out of the slalom season over the winter. Start off in a nice stable plastic pig to build confidence perhaps.
To build general confidence on white water run some rivers in the winter (although there is probably more water in them this time year!), play on your local weirs when the rivers up. Try some WhiteWater Racing in a wibbly wobbly boat.
Just athought.
How about this for an un-reasonable idea that applies to both sexes;
Everything is in the hands of the paddler.
You know you have entered “insert big water course of your choice” , go and practise there before the event if possible or out of the slalom season over the winter. Start off in a nice stable plastic pig to build confidence perhaps.
To build general confidence on white water run some rivers in the winter (although there is probably more water in them this time year!), play on your local weirs when the rivers up. Try some WhiteWater Racing in a wibbly wobbly boat.
Just athought.
GreenPeter,
This does presuppose that you have people that can take you - I'm sure you aren't suggesting that anyone does this unaccompagnied . While my son was moving up the lower divisions to div 1, I struggled to find anyone to take him on the bigger water - not because he lacked confidence or even ability. Everywhere I tried within a reasonable travelling distance would not take him without me in tow and I have no intention of paddling!
This does presuppose that you have people that can take you - I'm sure you aren't suggesting that anyone does this unaccompagnied . While my son was moving up the lower divisions to div 1, I struggled to find anyone to take him on the bigger water - not because he lacked confidence or even ability. Everywhere I tried within a reasonable travelling distance would not take him without me in tow and I have no intention of paddling!
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Common sense at lastGreenPeter wrote:Everything is in the hands of the paddler.
You know you have entered “insert big water course of your choice” , go and practise there before the event if possible or out of the slalom season over the winter. Start off in a nice stable plastic pig to build confidence perhaps.
To build general confidence on white water run some rivers in the winter (although there is probably more water in them this time year!), play on your local weirs when the rivers up. Try some WhiteWater Racing in a wibbly wobbly boat.
Just athought.
I am sure I have been saying the same thing for years!
Forget about gates and learn to paddle big water, eddy hoping is good practice, lets face it that is normally where up gates are?
Build your WW skills, learn to read and use the water to your advantage, then transfer those skills to slalom, this is a good recipe for success.
Paddle fast,,,Paddle safe Yorkshire Canoe Coaching
Slalom refines these WW skills - it makes you do it precisely there, and then there - sharpening the developing attributes of any paddler. There's a case to be made for having a basic level of ability on "reasonably challenging" water (and I'm aware that is a purely subjective classification) on a purely non-competitive basis before beginning in slalom and starting to think about gates/penalties/course design/promotion/etc.
The idea of a "degree of difficulty" for courses is interesting - could help to iron out the sort of discrepancies which will be shortly encountered in August forays north of the border at division 2 level, for example.
Might this have be adjusted dependent on water/technical levels? - but would this mean an on-site rating of conditions on the day(s) by the course designer or external verifier?
Whoops - back to further devil's advocacy!
The idea of a "degree of difficulty" for courses is interesting - could help to iron out the sort of discrepancies which will be shortly encountered in August forays north of the border at division 2 level, for example.
Might this have be adjusted dependent on water/technical levels? - but would this mean an on-site rating of conditions on the day(s) by the course designer or external verifier?
Whoops - back to further devil's advocacy!
-
Nick Penfold
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm
With all respect to Munchkin's intentions, what she proposes is very complicated and has a lot of repercussions on software and peopleware - some of us have to check and sometimes recalculate these things.
In any case the guidelines are that, at combined events, the course is set to the higher division, so giving +5% to the Div 3s at a 2/3 makes some sense but giving -5% to the Div 2s makes none - and would drive Div 2 paddlers away from the events.
Please let's keep it simple. At the end of the day it's the paddlers' responsibility to develop their whitewater skills, and they do - sometimes after their promotion, which is perhaps what short season status is for.
In any case the guidelines are that, at combined events, the course is set to the higher division, so giving +5% to the Div 3s at a 2/3 makes some sense but giving -5% to the Div 2s makes none - and would drive Div 2 paddlers away from the events.
Please let's keep it simple. At the end of the day it's the paddlers' responsibility to develop their whitewater skills, and they do - sometimes after their promotion, which is perhaps what short season status is for.