C1W points - Points and Promotion

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:55 pm

Rule 5.6 calculates points for a championship event starting with the final. If we apply this to last weekends race then Mallory would be entitled to 865 points (165.58/1.08=153.32: matched to Jake Sylvester's time of 111.65. Boats in 9th & 10th places had a time + penalties greater than 153.32).

Whilst Mallory's paddled very well, in points terms this overstates her achievement. A better way of dealing with a championship format (for C1W points calculation) is to reverse the thinking and start from qualification. If the C1W qualification modified score would have made the semifinal then use the semifinal result to calculate points. Similarly if the C1W semifinal modified score would have made the final, then use the final result to calculate points.

I believe this, in effect, is what Ken has done in calculating the points. Mallory and Alice would not have made the semifinal when compared with K1M times and the best result from considering both Prem and Div1 results has been awarded.

Dave Spencer

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:01 pm

Made a mistake - it is not rule 5.6 but paragraph 5.6 on page 48 of the slalom yearbook.

ElaineF · Post by **ElaineF** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:56 pm

Merlin's idea looks like it goes someway to address the anomaly I'm still seeing, whilst I agree that the points cannot simply be based on Men's final (800+ points would not be right as Mallory's race result last weekend) I still foresee the situation where the winning finalist comes away with fewer points then another competitor, the quickest run of the weekend could easily be that of the fastest qualifier who then gets 50s and crashes out in semi-final.

The points method used last weekend does not seem to me to reflect in anyway the different nature of a championship format event where the points are ultimately awarded in other categories to those paddlers producing a series of good race results over the weekend .. but maybe that's in fact only the effect of the current very low multiplier .. I'm still mulling it over.

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:15 pm

Sheets will be a bit delayed, I got arm ache from using the mouse and resorted to having dinner and packing for my weekend away instead! Nearly there (I hope!) but not tonight!

ElaineF · Post by **ElaineF** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:23 am

Maybe the C2 results from the weekend should be looked at too ... you'll see that the a number of crews that qualified gained their best points of the session, not I would suggest because they necessarily raced their best race all session but as a result of the way Championship points are calculated.

Have I missed something or didn't a crew had only to qualify to be assured of 500+ points .. isn't this the same feature we're all having a problem with in the C1W?

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:13 pm

Okay, as promised I have sent my spreadsheets to Dave, Colin (at the Proteus address) and the Franklins. Hopefully they will be able to use them to do the analysis they want to do.

The only thing I have worked out is that if the multiplier used was the same as the C2 (i.e 1.2) for Division 2/3 the "top" females would be:

Wendy - 3335
Anna - 3261
Munchkin - 2060
Julie - 1697

If promotion points were set as the C2 (2650) that would mean that Wendy and Anna would have been promoted. Anna early on in the season and Wendy somewhat later (due to when they both competed). I would be trying to get faster (as usual) to get valuable points, as would Julie. Obviously Mal and Ellie would have still been promoted.

One thing that I think should be considered is Dave's comment re: not getting promotion points from a Division 3 event. As I see it there are two problems with this (though I can obviously see the advantage):

1. The C2's having gained good points in Division 2 events can make up the final points required with a Division 3 event, therefore I can't see why the C1 women shouldn't be able to; and

2. It would reduce participation at Division 3 events. Why would I (and others like me pushing for promotion) pay the entry fees and petrol costs to travel if the points would mean nothing. The only reason would be to chase trophies??? If it came to those that didn't want promotion sticking to division 3 events and those that did want promotion sticking to division 2 events then you may as well split the C1W into division 2 and division 3.

Hope this all helps!!!

davebrads · Post by **davebrads** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:54 pm

Munchkin wrote:2. It would reduce participation at Division 3 events. Why would I (and others like me pushing for promotion) pay the entry fees and petrol costs to travel if the points would mean nothing. The only reason would be to chase trophies??? If it came to those that didn't want promotion sticking to division 3 events and those that did want promotion sticking to division 2 events then you may as well split the C1W into division 2 and division 3.

Thanks for your efforts Michelle.

As far as the above point is concerned, If we agree to raise the promotion points so that you can't get promoted just by entering div 3s, then anybody not wanting to get promoted will be able to race at only div 3 races to avoid promotion. Of course, if there are enough boats doing this, then div 3 events will be full of paddlers not wanting to get to Prem/1!

I don't know, maybe we should split up the divisions, after all there is a huge gulf between Anna and Wendy at the top of the division, and some of those just out of div 4, can they really be said to be racing against each other anyway?

I've not made my mind up yet, it will need some more thinking about before coming up with a motion. Keep the ideas coming please.

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:12 am

Top and bottom of div 2/3 are very different in C1w and C2, but it is the same in K1M in any division.
Is there more encouragement in turning up at an event with ten paddlers and pushing yourself, even if you stand little chance of winning, or turning up at an event with two or three boats?

I believe that having a reasonable number of boats in your class helps encourage the sport to grow, but I could be wrong. I certtainly enjoyed C2s with more boats, and last time I paddled kayak I was div 1, and could only have won if 75% of the other competitors got two or more 50s, BUT I enjoyed the racing, and compared my self to others in the division (with 10 secs of x, above y etc)

If we are going to change multipliers I think it essential that the points target is set so that points have to be won at div 2. This still enables a 'lucky' lady to paddle, Peterborough, Nene, Cardington, Cardington, then go straight to Town Falls. Good on her if she can handle it, if not we just have to hope that someone offers her advice!

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:28 am

My point is that in the C2 you can get 3 lots of points in division 2 event then one lot in a division 3 event if needed. I think that the women C1 should be able to too otherwise there is little incentive to pay to enter (I am more likely to judge at local events only). To be honest when Orton Mere division 3 is running at its best (like summer 2008) it is far harder then Bala Mill division 2 ever is... (but perhaps that is another discussion about who decideds that some division 2s are actually suitable...!)...

davebrads · Post by **davebrads** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:08 am

I get what you mean, but it will be so easy for a good C1W to get maximum points that once they have those points there is still no incentive to race at any further div 3s.

As I see it, and this applies to C2, it is easy for a good boat to get maximum points at a div 3. Therefore they only have to get good results at two div 2 races to earn promotion. This seems unfair when compared to the rest of the classes who have to do four div 2 races.

I can see an argument for setting it so that a single div 3 race can count, that would means setting promotion somewhere around the 3,000 to 3,200 mark.

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:51 am

I think that the C1 women and C2's should be set the same for next year. As I see it if they were set the same this year only 2 more girls would have gone up and both are more than capable of going up. Neither would have got 1000 in ANY race (though Mallory and Ellie would have done).

In reality only a few girls got maximum points at division 3 events (even with the new multiplier) and of those I they were all ranked in div 1 or prem in the K1 so clearly have experience on the bigger water*

If you set the figure above 3000 you would have to look at what happens if a girl gets 3000 in 3 races (which admitidly only one would have this year)? In the C2's this is not an issue as the points are below 3000 so there is currently no rule for that.

* Though I note that you wont have been able to look at that yet.

davebrads · Post by **davebrads** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:15 am

The other consideration when setting the divider is that it should be almost, but not quite, impossible for a world-class C1W to score 1000 points at a Prem race. I would like to keep the divider consistent across all the divisions, and for this reason I am ruling out 1.30. I have taken Munchkins data, and summarised it here. From this it would seem a choice between 1.20 and 3200 points, allowing 1 div 3 race to count, or 1.25 and 3600 points. Either way, Anna and Wendy would be promoted, and the next tier would be just short of gaining a result that could count towards promotion.

Looking at the Prem/1 data, I think it is very difficult to draw any conclusions at this stage. We don't have any C1s that are racing at World-class level yet, and they are generally racing only at Div 1s because of the points situation.

Slow Paddler · Post by **Slow Paddler** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:37 pm

Using the 1.2 or 1.25 divider would inspire women more, it's not much fun getting very low points, higher points with a higher threshold would be good.

Personally i prefer the 1.25, just because it puts me much higher up the table :laugh: but 1.2 gives results that are much more palatable after a race.

Regarding Div 3s, you'll get those new into it entering these events, as they feel like div 3 paddlers anyway, with people wanting more experience or decent points entering the 2s

davebrads · Post by **davebrads** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:38 pm

Munchkin wrote:IIf you set the figure above 3000 you would have to look at what happens if a girl gets 3000 in 3 races

I was thinking something along the lines of "xxxx points from 4 races, or maximum points in 3 races" to attain promotion, which I think is something like how it is worded for the K1s (not having a yearbook to hand to reference)

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:55 pm

Interesting comparison Dave, quite surprised how it made such a difference in position between the 1.20 and 1.25

With nearly 30 paddlers in the div 2/3 rankings now, is it not nearly time that they stood on their own? I have not checked entries at races to see if this is feasible, suspect not as they would not be quorate but something to consider for the future if the change in points attracts more competitors.

So is the thought to use the same factor for Prem/1 as most of the discussion seems to be centred about the div 2/3?

Thanks eveyone for putting a lot of time and effort into this.

Cheers Graeme