I did say that I would be trying to get my thoughts straight on this topic, but the 'other' topic kept getting sidetracked into this, so come on, express your views here.
Does the ranking system work? Do you think 'if it aint broke don't fix it?
Should we go for completely open entries and scrap ranking completely? Do we need a ranking list at all, how do we deal with 'duty of care'
Should we have a factor for each site and adjust the points given by this factor - do YOU want to provide a factor, and what happens when the water is up/down?
Do we modify the ranking system by having a and b sites, with the risk that an a site may be easier than a b in any year due to water levels (abbey 1 last year to abbey 1 this year!)
As I said, my thoughts are incomplete, so my plan (at least initially) is to keep quiet, except to pop up occasionally with negative comments (as above), please do not take them personally.
Thanks
To Rank or not to rank . . . . . - That is the question
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
Seapare issues.
Rank paddlers?? DEFINITELY. Strongest motivational tool I have, bootleg results studied keenly (during lessons I'm told, less said the better).
Divisions? DEFINITELY. See mum'n dad's hearts bursting when they get a promotion. Moment of glory to savour. A milestone.
Rank/rate venues?? Definitely, lets be sensible about duty of care.
But must we insist that (for example) D2 events must ONLY be held on a certain grade? That's where I start to wonder. If it's the same standard of competitor the adept paddlers will come to the fore wether easy or hard water. Does it matter if the grade is a bit below the MAX set for that Division? Not so sure. If it means an event can be scheduled where otherwise not, or that it can go ahead despite disappointing water, so what?
But if the consensus is to reflect water levels in the ranking points it would be easy enough to implement. Chairman of jury just decides if the winner gets 1000 or (if low water) 900. Some events could be rated at 900 from the outset by the national committee when setting the calendar. Could apply this at D1 - hardly worth the subtlety below that. Just thinking aloud. Only top one or two get points useful for promotion prospects, others using it to develop their abilities. If they want more points then they need to travel further.
Rank paddlers?? DEFINITELY. Strongest motivational tool I have, bootleg results studied keenly (during lessons I'm told, less said the better).
Divisions? DEFINITELY. See mum'n dad's hearts bursting when they get a promotion. Moment of glory to savour. A milestone.
Rank/rate venues?? Definitely, lets be sensible about duty of care.
But must we insist that (for example) D2 events must ONLY be held on a certain grade? That's where I start to wonder. If it's the same standard of competitor the adept paddlers will come to the fore wether easy or hard water. Does it matter if the grade is a bit below the MAX set for that Division? Not so sure. If it means an event can be scheduled where otherwise not, or that it can go ahead despite disappointing water, so what?
But if the consensus is to reflect water levels in the ranking points it would be easy enough to implement. Chairman of jury just decides if the winner gets 1000 or (if low water) 900. Some events could be rated at 900 from the outset by the national committee when setting the calendar. Could apply this at D1 - hardly worth the subtlety below that. Just thinking aloud. Only top one or two get points useful for promotion prospects, others using it to develop their abilities. If they want more points then they need to travel further.
-
Nick Penfold
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm
With apologies for repeating what I said on the other thread:
It seems to me that the divisions, and rankings within them:
- Are an excellent development vehicle. They offer a gentle introduction, the opportunity to win races early and steady development.
- Offer a graduation of courses and match the paddlers to them in a way no other system I know of could.
- Motivate through rewards, rankings, wins and promotion at every level.
- Give the better paddlers events protected from wally entrants who would obstruct the course and need constant rescuing.
- Allow upper-division event organisers to set challenging courses, in the knowledge that competitors can cope, and protected from parent or paddler bitching that "it's too hard".
Also, we know how they work and can be tuned to best effect. Anything else is a pig in a poke.
Afraid I don't like the idea of having "lower points" events. Do it beforehand, and you make the event less attractive: do it at the event and you are "robbing" the winners.
I don't think it's that critical if some events are a bit flat. In Div 1 it doesn't trouble me that Llandysul can be a bit bland, because you can't get up to Prem without three other very good results, or two wins at Llandyssul and one somewhere else. In Div 2 the problem isn't that a few races are flat, it's that there are too many flat races and you can get up to Div 1 on flat races alone. Now we could base Div 2 (and 3?) points and promotion on 5 events instead of 4...
It seems to me that the divisions, and rankings within them:
- Are an excellent development vehicle. They offer a gentle introduction, the opportunity to win races early and steady development.
- Offer a graduation of courses and match the paddlers to them in a way no other system I know of could.
- Motivate through rewards, rankings, wins and promotion at every level.
- Give the better paddlers events protected from wally entrants who would obstruct the course and need constant rescuing.
- Allow upper-division event organisers to set challenging courses, in the knowledge that competitors can cope, and protected from parent or paddler bitching that "it's too hard".
Also, we know how they work and can be tuned to best effect. Anything else is a pig in a poke.
Afraid I don't like the idea of having "lower points" events. Do it beforehand, and you make the event less attractive: do it at the event and you are "robbing" the winners.
I don't think it's that critical if some events are a bit flat. In Div 1 it doesn't trouble me that Llandysul can be a bit bland, because you can't get up to Prem without three other very good results, or two wins at Llandyssul and one somewhere else. In Div 2 the problem isn't that a few races are flat, it's that there are too many flat races and you can get up to Div 1 on flat races alone. Now we could base Div 2 (and 3?) points and promotion on 5 events instead of 4...
Ranking is fine, but I think we have too many divisions.
When I started in 1970 there were three divisions, plus novice, where you got promoted after two finishes. The number of paddlers wasn't that different to now - I don't have figures to hand, but if I must, I think I've still got the 1971 yearbook.
There was around one event per weekend in a reasonable travelling distance, usually Div 2/3, so entire clubs went to the same event. This provided new paddlers with lots of support, transport and friendship.
The rapid expansion of divisions and events in the 1980's resulted in paddlers only travelling to their own division events, and going to more events, so the club atmosphere broke down. There were then 6 divisions. The better paddlers didn't see any advantage in belonging to a club, and went independent. Pretty soon there weren't any good slalom paddlers left in many clubs to act as role models.
We still have most of the divisions and events which were set up for the boom times of the 1980's, but with much less paddlers. (Remember the Div 2 Linton Locks events with 250 entrants - and the practice queues?) The result is poorly attended events, which cause financial problems for the organisers, and less incentive for the paddlers. It also seems to be easier to get into Div 2, which resulted a few years ago in a sort of population inversion, where the base of the pyramid was smaller than the middle.
How to fix this? I don't know. Cutting out a division might help, as there then would be bigger entries at each division, a bigger step between divisions, so Div 2 really is better than Div 3.
Other factors which I feel contribute to the reduction in paddler numbers in the 1990's - GCSE coursework. The emphasis changed from a peak for 16-year-olds for a few months, to a slog for 15 and 16-year-olds for 2 years. Taking weekends away became much more of a problem.
Boat rules - the boat paddlers already has wasn't eligible for slalom - yes I know that was addressed, but 5+ years too late.
Pay-and-paddle sites - 4 hours paddling with a time commitment of 4 hours plus the journey, instead of 1 to 2 hours paddling spread over a weekend. Single-day and double events helped here.
Anti-elitism in education - you don't want competitive sports, because that means you have losers.
Slow progression - actually it is quicker than it was, but people expect instant gratification, so the training and patience needed to progress in slalom puts people off. (cf snowboarding vs skiing - you get to intermediate faster on a snowboard, so it's more popular, even though ultimately it's more limiting.)
Parental worries - up to the late 1990's most of our club trips saw a significant number of unaccompanied teenagers. Now we don't see any. As a result, parents don't want to encourage slalom, as it means they will have to spend weekends away as well.
With regard to flat water Div 2 events, the Nene is always popular - we've been oversubscribed 3 of the last 4 years, but financially it is borderline every year. We continue to run it to try and encourage slalom among the club paddlers (and it's starting to show results), but to do that we have to include Div 4. Without Div 4, we could take more entries from higher divisions, where we get more income, and we would also reduce the considerable outlay on prizes.
That'll do for now...
When I started in 1970 there were three divisions, plus novice, where you got promoted after two finishes. The number of paddlers wasn't that different to now - I don't have figures to hand, but if I must, I think I've still got the 1971 yearbook.
There was around one event per weekend in a reasonable travelling distance, usually Div 2/3, so entire clubs went to the same event. This provided new paddlers with lots of support, transport and friendship.
The rapid expansion of divisions and events in the 1980's resulted in paddlers only travelling to their own division events, and going to more events, so the club atmosphere broke down. There were then 6 divisions. The better paddlers didn't see any advantage in belonging to a club, and went independent. Pretty soon there weren't any good slalom paddlers left in many clubs to act as role models.
We still have most of the divisions and events which were set up for the boom times of the 1980's, but with much less paddlers. (Remember the Div 2 Linton Locks events with 250 entrants - and the practice queues?) The result is poorly attended events, which cause financial problems for the organisers, and less incentive for the paddlers. It also seems to be easier to get into Div 2, which resulted a few years ago in a sort of population inversion, where the base of the pyramid was smaller than the middle.
How to fix this? I don't know. Cutting out a division might help, as there then would be bigger entries at each division, a bigger step between divisions, so Div 2 really is better than Div 3.
Other factors which I feel contribute to the reduction in paddler numbers in the 1990's - GCSE coursework. The emphasis changed from a peak for 16-year-olds for a few months, to a slog for 15 and 16-year-olds for 2 years. Taking weekends away became much more of a problem.
Boat rules - the boat paddlers already has wasn't eligible for slalom - yes I know that was addressed, but 5+ years too late.
Pay-and-paddle sites - 4 hours paddling with a time commitment of 4 hours plus the journey, instead of 1 to 2 hours paddling spread over a weekend. Single-day and double events helped here.
Anti-elitism in education - you don't want competitive sports, because that means you have losers.
Slow progression - actually it is quicker than it was, but people expect instant gratification, so the training and patience needed to progress in slalom puts people off. (cf snowboarding vs skiing - you get to intermediate faster on a snowboard, so it's more popular, even though ultimately it's more limiting.)
Parental worries - up to the late 1990's most of our club trips saw a significant number of unaccompanied teenagers. Now we don't see any. As a result, parents don't want to encourage slalom, as it means they will have to spend weekends away as well.
With regard to flat water Div 2 events, the Nene is always popular - we've been oversubscribed 3 of the last 4 years, but financially it is borderline every year. We continue to run it to try and encourage slalom among the club paddlers (and it's starting to show results), but to do that we have to include Div 4. Without Div 4, we could take more entries from higher divisions, where we get more income, and we would also reduce the considerable outlay on prizes.
That'll do for now...
I think that the ranking system has many benefits which Nick has elucidated very well however it is healthy to consider the options.
One thought is that while keeping the divisions we could open up the racing more and allow paddlers ranked in the top part of a division to race in divisional races one category up. Points gained could be doubled (to a max of 1000) and count in their own division.
One thought is that while keeping the divisions we could open up the racing more and allow paddlers ranked in the top part of a division to race in divisional races one category up. Points gained could be doubled (to a max of 1000) and count in their own division.
I'm quite interested in the external factors that affect participation.
Personally, I understand that the workload increases at secondary school and realise this may become an issue. Thankfully mine seems quite academic and I believe he will cope.
However, even now the only way to attend some competitions is to take a day out of school (Friday) and only then if I can get someone to care for the little one until my wife (non-paddler) returns. It's not practical to drag them along every time and neither should I.
I wonder how long it will remain feasible to do this.
Regardless, it has the affect of having to bring extra work along for completion. I know others do this. Does this affect the quality of the work - trying to fit it in between competing - is it rushed
The alternative is
1 - Travel late, arrive late and get little sleep at a campsite due to noise, the dawn chorus etc.
2 - Leave at an early hour and travel up - again missing sleep and despite what some say, sleeping in the car is not a substitute.
Either of these options present me with an obviously tired child who never performs well in this condition and makes me ponder whether it is worth it in the first place. Who out there likes doing anything when knackered.
I'd be interested to know how many athletes, before a competition, go to bed around 1 a.m. wake up with the birds and then drop in and out of sleep for a few hours before they compete.
I wonder if any research has been done on sleep deprivation versus performance - I'm sure someone knows.
It's obviously a unique sport where the travelling is part and parcel for all, which I accept. However, where competitors are travelling late at night in the early hours I wonder if there is away around it. A lot of people are committed to this sport and flex there lives around it to the detriment of other stuff.
Can the sport be more flexible in reciprocation?
Well probably, within the bounds of the competition is there any scope to allow paddlers to do there practice and runs later in the day - say practice at lunchtime or something and runs in the p.m.
Now I know it's out there and will provoke a response so go ahead.
I don't believe that just because something has been done or accepted for a while that there isn't an alternative; if not this one then another
So to summarise can the sport be as flexible as the competitors?
Open the gates
Personally, I understand that the workload increases at secondary school and realise this may become an issue. Thankfully mine seems quite academic and I believe he will cope.
However, even now the only way to attend some competitions is to take a day out of school (Friday) and only then if I can get someone to care for the little one until my wife (non-paddler) returns. It's not practical to drag them along every time and neither should I.
I wonder how long it will remain feasible to do this.
Regardless, it has the affect of having to bring extra work along for completion. I know others do this. Does this affect the quality of the work - trying to fit it in between competing - is it rushed
The alternative is
1 - Travel late, arrive late and get little sleep at a campsite due to noise, the dawn chorus etc.
2 - Leave at an early hour and travel up - again missing sleep and despite what some say, sleeping in the car is not a substitute.
Either of these options present me with an obviously tired child who never performs well in this condition and makes me ponder whether it is worth it in the first place. Who out there likes doing anything when knackered.
I'd be interested to know how many athletes, before a competition, go to bed around 1 a.m. wake up with the birds and then drop in and out of sleep for a few hours before they compete.
I wonder if any research has been done on sleep deprivation versus performance - I'm sure someone knows.
It's obviously a unique sport where the travelling is part and parcel for all, which I accept. However, where competitors are travelling late at night in the early hours I wonder if there is away around it. A lot of people are committed to this sport and flex there lives around it to the detriment of other stuff.
Can the sport be more flexible in reciprocation?
Well probably, within the bounds of the competition is there any scope to allow paddlers to do there practice and runs later in the day - say practice at lunchtime or something and runs in the p.m.
Now I know it's out there and will provoke a response so go ahead.
I don't believe that just because something has been done or accepted for a while that there isn't an alternative; if not this one then another
So to summarise can the sport be as flexible as the competitors?
Open the gates