I thought that this weekend's course was one of the best we've had at this venue. The winner's time (well done Campbell) was in the right parish at 94 seconds and the course was pretty testing with some quite difficult staggers set in places. The race ran pretty well too after a late water switch on so big thanks to Esther and her team.
I did notice, however, that the two flush gates did cause a certain amount of protest style controversy and I have some sympathy with both judges and paddlers alike. It just begs a question in my mind as to whether things might of been better in some way.
Racing the course, I didn't notice gate 2 to be particularly generous in pole height, though the lower pole on 17 was definately high. After the event, I watched the sparsely populated team runs. The C1 team in particular (all righties) passed the lower (left bank) pole of gate 2 with their heads on the back decks as they did the gate forwards in preparation for gates three and four. I wouldn't of given a 50 for any of them, but, I couldn't swear that any of them had their head completely round the pole. The problem is the speed at which the paddlers were travelling past the gate at that time. Well, I found it quite a shock that I couldn't "be sure". I was pretty close to the gate, too.
The question, I suppose, is "Should the course designer consider how difficult a particular sequence might be to judge?". He already has to think about "Will the paddlers like it?" "Is it testing enough or too difficult or just plain stupid in an attempt to be different?" "Can the judges be sited correctly, without using too many of them?" "What heights should the poles be set at?" .......
Very tricky, and even more so at Washburn when you put up the gates with the water off.
This is not a dig at the course designer, the judges or the paddlers in any way. Often this kind of thing is very difficult to predict particularly for the course designer and judges. The paddlers will always be there with their bag of tools to try and get what fractions of seconds they can out of the course. Has anyone got a fifty because their goatie (part of the head you might say) was under the pole? Should of had a shave? or is this beard discrimination.
Any thoughts ?????
Washburn Prem
-
Phil Stevo
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Thanks for your comments on the Wahburn Prem course Dave. It's always good to get 'balanced' feedback from competitors.
The thinking behind the 2 split upstreams was to take some time out of the course whilst using the best features. You are right in saying the most difficult part of course design on Washburn is setting the course when the water is off. The adjustments were then rather hurried due to Yorkshire Water turning it on an hour later than planned.
In hindsight I would have kept gate 2 in the same position but have moved the bottom pole downstream about 50 cm as it proved to be a very difficult move for leftie C1s.
The section judge had a good sight line on the bottom pole, positioned on the bend below gate 4, but was a fair distance away.
The best boats I saw tackling gate 2 stayed out wide right on gate 1 to create some angle and momentum across the gateline then pulled it back on a reverse under the bottom pole. It looked really good when done well with no dispute about the head.
I guess when paddlers choose to take a faster, riskier line they need to accept that the half head will sometimes go against them becauce it is difficult to judge when done at speed. So maybe more thought is needed about the pressure that can be placed on judges with such gates. The 'up' on the muncher usually proves to be contentious, particularly at selection!
My main worry was how uncomfortable gate 20 would be with the banks and the rocks and I think, again in hindsight, it was a naff gate. However those that solved the problem and executed it well took 2-3 second off those that didn't.
The thinking behind the 2 split upstreams was to take some time out of the course whilst using the best features. You are right in saying the most difficult part of course design on Washburn is setting the course when the water is off. The adjustments were then rather hurried due to Yorkshire Water turning it on an hour later than planned.
In hindsight I would have kept gate 2 in the same position but have moved the bottom pole downstream about 50 cm as it proved to be a very difficult move for leftie C1s.
The section judge had a good sight line on the bottom pole, positioned on the bend below gate 4, but was a fair distance away.
The best boats I saw tackling gate 2 stayed out wide right on gate 1 to create some angle and momentum across the gateline then pulled it back on a reverse under the bottom pole. It looked really good when done well with no dispute about the head.
I guess when paddlers choose to take a faster, riskier line they need to accept that the half head will sometimes go against them becauce it is difficult to judge when done at speed. So maybe more thought is needed about the pressure that can be placed on judges with such gates. The 'up' on the muncher usually proves to be contentious, particularly at selection!
My main worry was how uncomfortable gate 20 would be with the banks and the rocks and I think, again in hindsight, it was a naff gate. However those that solved the problem and executed it well took 2-3 second off those that didn't.