From Slalom Exec Minutes August 14th 2010:
‘This increased promotion, unless backed up by an increase in numbers paddling will make the divisional pyramid even more top heavy. Although there is a review of the divisional system underway, the current structure must be supported.’
What this means is that the Exec considers that we are allowing too high a proportion of our paddlers to race on rough water, and forcing too low a proportion of our paddlers to race on flat water, because of the way we link Divisional Ranking with what races paddlers can race in.
Remember, no other slalom nation does this. They use their ranking structures to enable paddlers to compare themselves to each other, not to limit the roughness of the water they can race on.
Slalom is a rough-water sport. Surely, the better we run our sport, our coaching, our clubs, the higher will be the proportion of participants who are able and willing to race on ‘proper’ water rather then ‘beginners’ water’, and the shorter the time gap between starting and teaching that level.
In terms of our present structure, that would mean that the bigger the proportion of our paddlers in Divs Prem, 1 and 2, and the smaller the proportion of our paddlers in Divs 3 and 4, the better we are doing for our paddlers.
So we have to either divorce divisional status from what water paddlers race on – in which case we can have a ‘pyramidal structure’ – or aim to have a ‘pear-shaped’ or perhaps ‘light-bulb shaped’ divisional structure. Pyramids may be very stable, but they were designed for the dead (Egyptian) or soon-to-be-dead (Mayan, Aztec) not for the living.
What does top-heavy mean?
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
Right sign me up to run a div 4 on the graveyard please!!:p I'm sure there will be hundreds of entries!
In all seriousness developing paddlers want to race on lesser water, good paddlers (should) want to race on better water, THE DIVISIONAL SYSTEM ACHIEVES THIS! (as well as any system can) please stop bleeting on about non divisional non ranked ary fairy non competetive drivvel. I'm not french and i don't want the french system introducing in the uk just because it works in france which is about 4 times the size of england doesn't mean it will work over here.
Rant over, Grrrrrrr!
In all seriousness developing paddlers want to race on lesser water, good paddlers (should) want to race on better water, THE DIVISIONAL SYSTEM ACHIEVES THIS! (as well as any system can) please stop bleeting on about non divisional non ranked ary fairy non competetive drivvel. I'm not french and i don't want the french system introducing in the uk just because it works in france which is about 4 times the size of england doesn't mean it will work over here.
Rant over, Grrrrrrr!
Old School,
What an incredibly blinkered and ridiculous view you have. For a start you have totally misunderstood what John and others of us have said about the possibilities of arranging the structure of slalom differently. I don't think that any of us have suggested a non-ranked, non-competitive system, just a non-divisional system where the decision around water water to paddle on would be taken by paddlers/coaches/parents, rather than laid down arbitrarily in a divisional system.
We are not for a moment suggesting that div 4 standard paddlers should be paddling prem standard water, why would they want to? Please credit paddlers/coaches/parents with some common sense in that the vast majority of them would make sensible decisions about what to paddle!
You state that the current current divisional system is as good as any in providing the right developmental balance for paddlers. Have you got any empirical evidence to support ths view? If so I would be very interested in seeing it. Please be warned I'm a researcher of some 25 years experience, thus would expect some robust analysis.
I'm not necessarily suggesting that a non-divisional system would be better, but at least some of us are prepared to contemplate alternatives, which is surely what a review of the structure of slalom should be about.
Your last comments on the French system border on xenophobic and are not worthy of a response.
What an incredibly blinkered and ridiculous view you have. For a start you have totally misunderstood what John and others of us have said about the possibilities of arranging the structure of slalom differently. I don't think that any of us have suggested a non-ranked, non-competitive system, just a non-divisional system where the decision around water water to paddle on would be taken by paddlers/coaches/parents, rather than laid down arbitrarily in a divisional system.
We are not for a moment suggesting that div 4 standard paddlers should be paddling prem standard water, why would they want to? Please credit paddlers/coaches/parents with some common sense in that the vast majority of them would make sensible decisions about what to paddle!
You state that the current current divisional system is as good as any in providing the right developmental balance for paddlers. Have you got any empirical evidence to support ths view? If so I would be very interested in seeing it. Please be warned I'm a researcher of some 25 years experience, thus would expect some robust analysis.
I'm not necessarily suggesting that a non-divisional system would be better, but at least some of us are prepared to contemplate alternatives, which is surely what a review of the structure of slalom should be about.
Your last comments on the French system border on xenophobic and are not worthy of a response.
No sport can afford to get locked into "we have always done it this way". Lets review the possibilities and if there is better then lets be prepared to try it. Should we really be looking to restrict the number of Prem paddlers. The more that we attract into the sport (lets face it because it is exciting) and the more we have competing successfully at Prem the better will the sport become in the UK.
Incidentally I think that running a Div 4 alongside a race at the Graveyard would actually be a way to show the excitement of the sport and the Div 4 that runs in Aberfeldy seems to benefit from the adjacent Div 1 and Pan Celtic at Tully.
Incidentally I think that running a Div 4 alongside a race at the Graveyard would actually be a way to show the excitement of the sport and the Div 4 that runs in Aberfeldy seems to benefit from the adjacent Div 1 and Pan Celtic at Tully.
-
kendall chew
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:21 pm
- Location: Cheshire
PeterC has a point. Why not run high powered events alongside easy ones? It is really the only way that most of us are going to see the really good paddlers compete. You tube simply does not do it for me.
A naiieve question on a personal note- If I, as a Div 2 paddler, want to compete on Div 1 water for my own pleasure, can I guarantee a race if I apply and, do I need to do a judges run to make that placement certain? Be gentle with me, I am getting old!!
A naiieve question on a personal note- If I, as a Div 2 paddler, want to compete on Div 1 water for my own pleasure, can I guarantee a race if I apply and, do I need to do a judges run to make that placement certain? Be gentle with me, I am getting old!!
-
roodthomas
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:33 pm
- Location: Barnsley
PeterC wrote:No sport can afford to get locked into "we have always done it this way". Lets review the possibilities and if there is better then lets be prepared to try it. Should we really be looking to restrict the number of Prem paddlers. The more that we attract into the sport (lets face it because it is exciting) and the more we have competing successfully at Prem the better will the sport become in the UK.
Incidentally I think that running a Div 4 alongside a race at the Graveyard would actually be a way to show the excitement of the sport and the Div 4 that runs in Aberfeldy seems to benefit from the adjacent Div 1 and Pan Celtic at Tully.
Aberfeldy Slalom.....
Yes it does (benefit from the Tully events). It might even have been planned that way!
-
Seedy Paddler
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm
John has some valid points that are in danger of being hidden by the group thinking on Committee support.
1/ Is the system top heavy?
Taking K1M as the basis for comparison Bib issue 2010
Prem 67
Div 1 116
Div 2 170
Div 3 283
Based on a square pyramid that is a root index of circa 8:10:13:17, so the planned system for 2010 is a good pyramid basis.
Current mid year Ranking lists (provisional)
Prem 56
Div 1 106
Div 2 134
Div 3 189
Whilst showing some weakening from the plan we still have root index in the order of 8:10:12;14.
So whilst there are signs of attrition we still maintain a reasonable pyramidical structure. Whilst there is evidence to indicate a loss at entry levels, surely we should address that by promotion of the sport than by restrictive practises.
2/ Are paddlers restricted to only paddle their own division?
John seems to think that the current system restricts paddlers to only paddle within their own division. Yet I am not aware of any events turning away Judges entries and with a Judges entry you can paddle at any event. This is not something new, as a teenager I was far more likely to make the effort to make the school club trips to Awe; Netherton Bridge etc and paddle olde Div 2/3 style white water courses than to go to the flat water Novice courses at the Leny etc. There is a responsibility with coaches and paddlers to consider more than just results but overall paddler development. It is possible and perhaps it should be made easier for established paddlers to participate at the level they believe they should be and gain direct ranking through comparative results. For example Tim & Etienne didn’t start paddling C2 in Div 4 and work their way up. They demonstrated that they were capable and entered as Prem. Such an option should be available for any paddler.
The ranking system may have many faults but it does provide a reasonable guide to define a varied structure and identify potential entry points and level of challenge.
3/ Are we being swamped with entries and need to restrict?
Not from recent events, Tully – bank holiday again K1M
Div 1 – potential entry 137 – actual circa 45 = 33%
Div 2 – potential entry 194 – actual entry 22 = 11%
In the heydays of slalom we would have expected 100 Div 1 paddlers and a single division event would be more than sustainable. If, as has been suggested on other threads, we want to revert to that then we need to expand the customer base and potentially allow Division 1 to double in size.
4/ Will a larger top division influence media and sport promotion?
Certainly in 2008 the media were very keen on slalom following the Medal performance in Beijing. I was called for local press and TV events, whilst they did film at the Seaton training site (Div 4 flat water), the majority of the broadcast footage and pictures were taken from the rapid below the site – because it was more exciting and hence attractive. Tully has been featured on a number of occasions on BBC programmes. I have taken the, then, Scottish Sports Minister down Tully at a previous slalom. All benefited because the water was deemed exciting, all resulted in promotion of the sport.
In the numbers game, alongside Tully this past weekend we had the Blair Atholl horse trials with over 1000 horses and riders participating. Further up the road we had Thunder in the Glens motorbike rally with 1500 attending. Hence the traffic issues on the A9 for those travelling to/from Tully. Both of those featured in local and National media, the slalom didn’t.
It may be regarded as a generalisation but there are very clear supporting issues to demonstrate that a larger more exciting event may be more attractive to media and hence promotion of the sport.
So in summation:
• There is no evidence to support the sport being top heavy
• Paddlers should be encouraged to seek ranking at the appropriate level
• A larger more competitive upper level has clear attraction for improved media coverage and hence publicity
• With current levels of participation/attrition we need to promote the sport rather than try to control by restrictive practises
1/ Is the system top heavy?
Taking K1M as the basis for comparison Bib issue 2010
Prem 67
Div 1 116
Div 2 170
Div 3 283
Based on a square pyramid that is a root index of circa 8:10:13:17, so the planned system for 2010 is a good pyramid basis.
Current mid year Ranking lists (provisional)
Prem 56
Div 1 106
Div 2 134
Div 3 189
Whilst showing some weakening from the plan we still have root index in the order of 8:10:12;14.
So whilst there are signs of attrition we still maintain a reasonable pyramidical structure. Whilst there is evidence to indicate a loss at entry levels, surely we should address that by promotion of the sport than by restrictive practises.
2/ Are paddlers restricted to only paddle their own division?
John seems to think that the current system restricts paddlers to only paddle within their own division. Yet I am not aware of any events turning away Judges entries and with a Judges entry you can paddle at any event. This is not something new, as a teenager I was far more likely to make the effort to make the school club trips to Awe; Netherton Bridge etc and paddle olde Div 2/3 style white water courses than to go to the flat water Novice courses at the Leny etc. There is a responsibility with coaches and paddlers to consider more than just results but overall paddler development. It is possible and perhaps it should be made easier for established paddlers to participate at the level they believe they should be and gain direct ranking through comparative results. For example Tim & Etienne didn’t start paddling C2 in Div 4 and work their way up. They demonstrated that they were capable and entered as Prem. Such an option should be available for any paddler.
The ranking system may have many faults but it does provide a reasonable guide to define a varied structure and identify potential entry points and level of challenge.
3/ Are we being swamped with entries and need to restrict?
Not from recent events, Tully – bank holiday again K1M
Div 1 – potential entry 137 – actual circa 45 = 33%
Div 2 – potential entry 194 – actual entry 22 = 11%
In the heydays of slalom we would have expected 100 Div 1 paddlers and a single division event would be more than sustainable. If, as has been suggested on other threads, we want to revert to that then we need to expand the customer base and potentially allow Division 1 to double in size.
4/ Will a larger top division influence media and sport promotion?
Certainly in 2008 the media were very keen on slalom following the Medal performance in Beijing. I was called for local press and TV events, whilst they did film at the Seaton training site (Div 4 flat water), the majority of the broadcast footage and pictures were taken from the rapid below the site – because it was more exciting and hence attractive. Tully has been featured on a number of occasions on BBC programmes. I have taken the, then, Scottish Sports Minister down Tully at a previous slalom. All benefited because the water was deemed exciting, all resulted in promotion of the sport.
In the numbers game, alongside Tully this past weekend we had the Blair Atholl horse trials with over 1000 horses and riders participating. Further up the road we had Thunder in the Glens motorbike rally with 1500 attending. Hence the traffic issues on the A9 for those travelling to/from Tully. Both of those featured in local and National media, the slalom didn’t.
It may be regarded as a generalisation but there are very clear supporting issues to demonstrate that a larger more exciting event may be more attractive to media and hence promotion of the sport.
So in summation:
• There is no evidence to support the sport being top heavy
• Paddlers should be encouraged to seek ranking at the appropriate level
• A larger more competitive upper level has clear attraction for improved media coverage and hence publicity
• With current levels of participation/attrition we need to promote the sport rather than try to control by restrictive practises
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
Craig
Your figues in (1) are right over the whole sport, but conceal some things I find worrying
a) If you look at the 'serious' clubs - with comparatively large memberships, regularly recruiting, coaching, developing - c. 15 clubs, including in Scotland Breadalbane, Stirling, CR Cats - they are tubular rather than pyramidal (and in fact if you take out the parents who cluster in Div 3 - I don't mean all adult paddlers - they are slightly mushroom shaped in total)
b) In the middle of the range there are some 'serious' clubs - almost all in the South of England where there is a lack of Div 2, Div 1 and Prem events - which do correspond to that pyramidal shape, but I think would be tubular if they had more opportunities
c) What keeps the shape pyramidal is the large number of Clubs that are not 'serious'. In England in 2009 there were 22 Clubs none of whose Junior paddlers reached Div 3; 7 Clubs some of whose Junior paddlers reached Div 3 but never raced; and 16 Clubs who had no Junior paddlers above Div 3
But to me, Slalom is a rough water sport: flat water events are for beginners striving to get onto 'real' water. At the moment the dividing line comes somewhere near the Div 3 water/Div 2 water line; so the more paddlers there are in Prem, 1 and 2 compared to 3 and 4 the better we as a sport are doing at developing them.
Your figues in (1) are right over the whole sport, but conceal some things I find worrying
a) If you look at the 'serious' clubs - with comparatively large memberships, regularly recruiting, coaching, developing - c. 15 clubs, including in Scotland Breadalbane, Stirling, CR Cats - they are tubular rather than pyramidal (and in fact if you take out the parents who cluster in Div 3 - I don't mean all adult paddlers - they are slightly mushroom shaped in total)
b) In the middle of the range there are some 'serious' clubs - almost all in the South of England where there is a lack of Div 2, Div 1 and Prem events - which do correspond to that pyramidal shape, but I think would be tubular if they had more opportunities
c) What keeps the shape pyramidal is the large number of Clubs that are not 'serious'. In England in 2009 there were 22 Clubs none of whose Junior paddlers reached Div 3; 7 Clubs some of whose Junior paddlers reached Div 3 but never raced; and 16 Clubs who had no Junior paddlers above Div 3
But to me, Slalom is a rough water sport: flat water events are for beginners striving to get onto 'real' water. At the moment the dividing line comes somewhere near the Div 3 water/Div 2 water line; so the more paddlers there are in Prem, 1 and 2 compared to 3 and 4 the better we as a sport are doing at developing them.
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
{Rant Mode On}
Sorry can not let it go any longer
As the poor slob that wrote this, it means nothing of the sort.
We have a divisional system that is in place, the committee needs to try to make it work. In the paragraph from the minutes it acknowledges that there is a review going on, which may change the status quo, and then the committee will move to the changed position.
Any other course would mean that the committee is unilaterally changing things that are fundamental to the sport as it is. That would provide even more opprobrium than the current misreading.
OK I feel better now
{Rant Mode Off}
The main reason I came here though was that the ACM and the closing date for motions is fast approaching.
I am not in a position where I feel able to propose a motion on this subject, I am still undecided. Does anyone out there feel that they have a good enough vision that they want to put a motion to the ACM? ??? If so please speak up and get busy. I am happy to help with drafting, but do not have the critical view of how it will all work.
If that produces the normal tumbleweed moment, anyone feel like leading a discussion on this after the ACM? ??? (Not a committee suggestion, or approved, but I will propose this if there are takers). OR just leading one side of the discussion?
If no one will come forward, this will be left and we will continue with the status quo for at least another year. If you want to discuss get drafting help PM me, or post here, or email – my address is in the year book (For those who do not know CP = Colin Woodgate – Proteus/Slalom Committee ).
After Johns Multiple posts on multiple threads, I will be putting similar please on several threads, apologies to those, who this irritates (like me)
Sorry can not let it go any longer
‘This increased promotion, unless backed up by an increase in numbers paddling will make the divisional pyramid even more top heavy. Although there is a review of the divisional system underway, the current structure must be supported.’
What this means is that the Exec considers that we are allowing too high a proportion of our paddlers to race on rough water, and forcing too low a proportion of our paddlers to race on flat water, because of the way we link Divisional Ranking with what races paddlers can race in
As the poor slob that wrote this, it means nothing of the sort.
We have a divisional system that is in place, the committee needs to try to make it work. In the paragraph from the minutes it acknowledges that there is a review going on, which may change the status quo, and then the committee will move to the changed position.Any other course would mean that the committee is unilaterally changing things that are fundamental to the sport as it is. That would provide even more opprobrium than the current misreading.
OK I feel better now
{Rant Mode Off}
The main reason I came here though was that the ACM and the closing date for motions is fast approaching.
I am not in a position where I feel able to propose a motion on this subject, I am still undecided. Does anyone out there feel that they have a good enough vision that they want to put a motion to the ACM? ??? If so please speak up and get busy. I am happy to help with drafting, but do not have the critical view of how it will all work.
If that produces the normal tumbleweed moment, anyone feel like leading a discussion on this after the ACM? ??? (Not a committee suggestion, or approved, but I will propose this if there are takers). OR just leading one side of the discussion?
If no one will come forward, this will be left and we will continue with the status quo for at least another year. If you want to discuss get drafting help PM me, or post here, or email – my address is in the year book (For those who do not know CP = Colin Woodgate – Proteus/Slalom Committee
).After Johns Multiple posts on multiple threads, I will be putting similar please on several threads, apologies to those, who this irritates (like me)
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
-
Nick Penfold
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm
Sorry all, but "this increased promotion, unless backed up by an increase in numbers paddling will make the divisional pyramid even more top heavy" would in theory be true but isn't really likely to materialise.
The promotion targets tend to give about the same number of promotions year by year if a similar number of paddlers race at a similar number of events. You get more promotions if there are more races equally well attended, or the same number of races with higher attendances. Higher attendances can mean either more paddlers or busier paddlers, and either is good news. There is also a random factor: numbers promoted vary a bit according to how the points get shared around. Have we weighed up the numbers paddling? If there have been more promotions than in past years, there are probably more paddler-races behind them.
I don't think the ranking system is about keeping anyone off rough water, though a lot of paddlers wouldn't get started if Tully, Tryweryn or HPP were typical of what they were expected to start on. It's about providing a process to develop skills and confidence: it's also about providing events for a range of skill-levels and commitment*. It represents years of experience and tweaking, but it isn't just "because it's always been that way" - you can justify it from scratch, logically.
JS's comparisons with other countries also miss the fact that we are lucky enough to have (relatively speaking) quite a lot of paddlers in quite a small country. That means we can have the luxury of ranked events, which others might wish for but can't support.
The present ranking system isn't the only one possible, but, please, let's not dive into something else until it's been properly thought through.
* how much time you want to put in, how far you want to travel...
The promotion targets tend to give about the same number of promotions year by year if a similar number of paddlers race at a similar number of events. You get more promotions if there are more races equally well attended, or the same number of races with higher attendances. Higher attendances can mean either more paddlers or busier paddlers, and either is good news. There is also a random factor: numbers promoted vary a bit according to how the points get shared around. Have we weighed up the numbers paddling? If there have been more promotions than in past years, there are probably more paddler-races behind them.
I don't think the ranking system is about keeping anyone off rough water, though a lot of paddlers wouldn't get started if Tully, Tryweryn or HPP were typical of what they were expected to start on. It's about providing a process to develop skills and confidence: it's also about providing events for a range of skill-levels and commitment*. It represents years of experience and tweaking, but it isn't just "because it's always been that way" - you can justify it from scratch, logically.
JS's comparisons with other countries also miss the fact that we are lucky enough to have (relatively speaking) quite a lot of paddlers in quite a small country. That means we can have the luxury of ranked events, which others might wish for but can't support.
The present ranking system isn't the only one possible, but, please, let's not dive into something else until it's been properly thought through.
* how much time you want to put in, how far you want to travel...