The Structure of Slalom

[kanu.63]

Hi
In answer to quote below
[quote]There is a lot of good stuff in the level 1 course, but I suspect the problem lies in the prerequisites, i.e. having to be a 2 star paddler (if I am wrong, let me know).
There is info on Star award equivalents for Competition coaches wishing to enter coaching. (link below)
It is noted that having to gain a Star Award or indeed two Star Awards to progress past BCU UKCC Level 1 Coach is a huge hurdle for paddlers/coaches who are fully committed to their discipline and are not involved in the Star Award process at all in their general paddling activities.
http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/media/p ... 20V1-0.pdf
The BCU Terms of referance have also been reviewed and updated to fit the needs of slalom coaches
http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/media/p ... 20V4-0.pdf
There is more info availible on the Coach Education Program that Canoe England are running at
http://www.canoeslalom.co.uk/info/slalo ... gramme.htm ]
or from your Home nation
Hope this helps, any questions please ask - russell.smith@canoe-england.org.uk

Thanks Russ

[Nick Penfold]

RANT WARNING

I completely agree that having more big slalom clubs would be a great way to develop slalom. What I don't know is how you make that happen.

I also agree that more coaching would be great.

BUT NEITHER IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD. PLEASE START NEW THREADS TO DISCUSS THEM, AND LEAVE THIS ONE AS A DISCUSSION OF THE PROS AND CONS OF CHANGES IN THE RANKING SYSTEM.

People, almost every discussion on this board goes off at a tangent and comes to no useful conclusion. This one is well on the way only 48 hours in.

[Flyhigh3]

'LEAVE THIS ONE AS A DISCUSSION OF THE PROS AND CONS OF CHANGES IN THE RANKING SYSTEM'.
Is that the thread?

'"it ain’t broke, why fix it?" But think about it. The truth is that, at lower division levels at least, our system doesn’t work all that well, and we are not recruiting and developing paddlers in the numbers we should. Maybe the rigidity of our divisional structure is part of the problem'.

maybe it's not - how do we know?

And if we don't actually know, why change it if it ain't broke and we might actually make it worse?

Shouldn't we do some research or investigation first?

[davebrads]

This is a fairly free-ranging discussion, but it is pertinent to the subject of the thread. In your first post you stated:

The truth is that, at lower division levels at least, our system doesn’t work all that well, and we are not recruiting and developing paddlers in the numbers we should.

What I am saying is that I agree that we are not recruiting and developing paddlers as we should, but if anyone thinks that the problem lies with the ranking system they are way off target.

I believe the ranking system is one of the strengths of the sport in this country, and I think that it has been a great contributor to our international success in the past. I think that there must be a more compelling reason to change it than the possibility that we might attract and retain a few more paddlers. We have much bigger issues that need to be addressed at club level first, and it is there that any efforts should be directed.

[davebrads]

There is info on Star award equivalents for Competition coaches wishing to enter coaching.

I remember someone mentioning this to me a while ago, but to be honest I had forgotten about it. Having read it, it looks great, but it doesn't seem to be very well advertised. Should the page on the Canoe Slalom website be updated with this information?

[Nick W]

The reason the thread dilutes into other topics is because the ranking structure question is a symptom of the wider, complex question of how to grow slalom while making our sport more efficient, effective and fun!
To the slalom structure of divisions/rankings (and not the sport as a whole):

It works:
o It provides a good method of developing novices to elite paddlers through peer level competition with achievable promotion objectives in bite-sized chunks.
o Paddle-up opportunities mean that more capable paddlers can promote quickly and find their natural competitive level.
o It sets an expectation of the difficulty/water-level.

It can be improved by:
o Requiring competition organisers to move exceptional Div4 paddlers into Div 3 if their run-time is obviously of Div3 standard, e.g. 20 seconds ahead of the rest of the field. In this instance the competitor is moved from Div4 and into Div3 on the results sheet at no cost, receives a field promotion to Div3, receives the points for competing in Div3, and the Div4 results do not show the moved competitor (or have their promotion numbers effected).
In summary:
- Don’t rip and replace – tweak instead.

HOWEVER – the ranking structure is not the big issue problem we need to solve. We need to look at far more fundamental issues:
- Permanent slalom training sites

- Access to shared resources:
o Training sites
o Coaching (grass-roots and all the way up to elite)
o Boats/Paddles
o Soft kit
o Competition gates/timing
o Equipment/boat storage at training sites

- Barriers to reaching elite status:
o The step increase in costs when competing at Div1 and above (you have to be wealthy to rank as well as capable)
o Access to local slalom clubs
o Feed-through and elite coaching is centralised in one place instead of out in the regions

- Slalom club outreach to none-slalom clubs

- Online event registration and payment

- Online bib management and payment

- Electronic payment for events

- …lots of other things I can list if you are interested.

I can make suggestions on how these things can be achieved - just ask

[SilverSurfer]

The thread starts out by saying this is a review of the ranking system, but then leads on to the recruitment and retention of paddlers. I’m sorry but I do not see how the two are linked, one is an administrative issues (ranking system) and the other is about the growth and development of the sport (recruitment and retention of paddlers).

The proposal contradicts itself in support of a single ranking list, its argument is based upon open competitions for all paddlers, then concludes that you would have to restrict entries based on bib number for the premier/band A races – isn’t that the current divisional system ?

Whilst I can see the merits of the rolling ranking table, there is still an argument for retaining the current ranking table – it all depends on what you are tracking, current performance vs. long term performance – both have their merits. At the end of the day, it’s just a spread sheet sorted in one of two ways; a simple button to click to switch between the two views is all that is needed.

The current system might not be perfect, but I wouldn’t say it was broken. If the focus is on recruitment and retention of paddlers, then I’m in support of the arguments and issues put forward in previous posts regarding access to Training sites, Coaching, Equipment etc., these are the areas we should be focusing on to develop and take the sport forward where we would see real benefit from change.

[marvc1]

This is becoming very diluted, but back to the original topic the only problem with the current system is that it limits who can race what.

Why limit that? Why not have every race as an open race and keep the same divisional system.

A prem race is still a prem race in terms of rankings and points. Just that anyone can enter and the result show in order of who was the fastest, not who is in what division. The rankings are still calculated in exactly the same way, just the people who are not in that division are not counted for points.

It's clear, simple, keeps everything the same as it currently is (mostly) and allows anybody to race anywhere against everybody else who turns up.

And the best part is that it is only a single tiny change.

[SilverSurfer]

I agree with Marvin.

The main thrust of the proposal put forward is that we have a single open ranking system that enables any paddler to enter any race. I agree with this sentiment, but you can do that today, it’s called doing a judges run - you just don’t get any points.

I agree not everyone likes doing judges runs, and therefore misses out on the opportunity to race in higher division. But how many paddlers are we talking about who fall into this category, I cannot imagine many.

However, to address this why not have “x” number of additional places for paddlers in other divisions to race, the same as we do today for the Washburn Div 2 and Open – which works very well, as you get the Div 1 paddlers entering in preparation for the Division 1 race that follows a couple of weeks later.

Paddlers not in the division for a specific race then have two options, pay and paddle in the Open or help out with judging and get a free run. This would then provide the opportunity for those paddlers wanting more race experience.

A small change is all that is needed, no need for a compete overall of the ranking system.

[boatmum]

Have to say totally support what Silver surfer is saying. My own thoughts would be - having listened to a lot of organisers and their helpers - a period of stability is needed after what has been quite a bit of change over the recent period and many have told me they would actually quite like a bit of respite from what they regard as 'constant' changes to the system.

Whilst I can see the merits of the rolling ranking table, there is still an argument for retaining the current ranking table – it all depends on what you are tracking, current performance vs. long term performance – both have their merits. At the end of the day, it’s just a spread sheet sorted in one of two ways; a simple button to click to switch between the two views is all that is needed.

This is one of the sanest reviews of the ranking lists I have heard - thank you ! I have not posted here about a situation before as I thought it might be too specifically personal but now wonder if anyone else was affected in either a similar or another way.

The abrupt move to the rolling rankings actually cost us our boat sponsor - all they wanted was a list (official or unofficial - they really didn't care) that they could point to to say "there is our sponsored athlete - top 10 mid season in their division and we've helped" - for them it is purely a marketing exercise. The rolling rankings muddied the clarity they were looking for - the above suggested "fix" would have been perfect!

I guess what I'm saying is changes can and do sometimes affect our slalom community in ways no one ever expected so proper discussion and debate and consideration from as many as possible is needed ☺ Thank you

[carealto]

The proposal feels like a step too far to me. It addresses some of the problems but throws out too much of what we have. One of the main problems I have found since my daughter and I started in slalom is that of inquorate classes - particularly in womens K1. The comparison with the K1 mens time may work as a general approach but seems to have a different effect at different events as the effects of paddler weight, strength and skill all have different effects on different courses. My daughters experience is that some events - particularly Fairnilee - seemed to deter div 3 women. This year she had the same problem at the div 1/2 at Abbey Rapids - only 3 div 2 women each day! This would be solved by the proposed scheme, but other methods (such as awarding more points to div 3 paddlers at 2/3 events than at 3/4 events) may encourage paddlers to compete on "harder" courses.

The proposal assumes that paddlers will "find their own level and attend events appropriately". My feeling is that events currently aimed at div 3/4 paddlers may see an influx of more talented paddlers - particularly those local to the event - who will enter and may demoralise the competitors at which the event is aimed. There may also be the "bravado" entries - those endangering themselves and others by entering events for which they are far from ready! I think some controls would be needed!

Bibs are currently used to sort out a running order. A bib for life would prevent this, although I'm a for a reduction in the need to post things. Perhaps if organisers all used the same software it could look up current rankings and sort the running order appropriately?

Removal of div 4 - great - direct entry into div 3 would be fine - why do we have this barrier to entry in our sport? But can we then have div 3 events arranged at short notice like the div 4 short courses. We need more entry level events and it is hard enough to get people to run them being planned a year or more ahead.

My impression is that paddlers like the divisional structure as there is always a target to aim for.

My preference would be for a rolling system, but that is a fairly minor thing.

[Nick Penfold]

"Events currently aimed at div 3/4 paddlers may see an influx of more talented paddlers - particularly those local to the event - who will enter and may demoralise the competitors at which the event is aimed"

Maybe we need to work out how to ensure that prizes go to the target range of paddlers. But it's my experience that when a really good paddler turns up at a lower-division event it generates a real buzz: the others aren't demoralised, they're excited to see just how fast the course can be done, and what they can aspire to.

[Dee]

Each class (K1M, K1W etc.) would have a single ranking list including all ranked paddlers, from the top of today’s Premier Division down to newly ranked competitors.
Races would be targeted at three or four broad levels of ability: perhaps (in K1M terms) the top 100 or so, the next 200, the remaining 300, and newcomers.
The points awarded would reflect the relative difficulty of the site and the course configuration.
In theory any paddler could enter any race, but paddlers will find their own level and attend events appropriately - what they prefer, and where they can get the best points.

I think that there is a lot to be said for this proposal.

Whilst paddlers can compete at any event by doing a judges run, it is not necessarily practical to drive a couple of hundred miles to do so when what the paddler really wants is points towards ranking promotion. What this proposal will allow is for paddlers to compete when and where they want.

The biggest beneficiaries will therefore be those who are in the areas where there are fewer opportunities to compete. For those paddlers it will make it cheaper and easier to attain a moderate ranking simply by attending all local slaloms.

There will be fewer issues with inquorate classes (although we could swap this problem for one of disparity between competitors).

There would be less issues with too much/too little water as the target group could be tweaked and points adjusted.

Numbers at events should rise which will be good for profitability/minimising losses

"Rolling" rankings would be based on each paddler’s best 5 results in the previous 52 weeks, continuously reflecting a paddler's "true" ranking position. There would be no promotion or demotion, just movement on the ranking list.

I think that there is a place for both rolling rankings and end of season rankings (which are of course the rolling ranking at that fixed point in time).

End of season rankings could still be reflected by bib numbers (I'm against a "bib for life" at the moment as I think there are too many issues with types of bid, re-use of bib numbers etc) and I believe that paddlers will quickly adjust to aiming for the top 300/200/100; these will in effect become the new "divisions" but without the paddling restrictions.

There are lots of little details to think through, which is why I don’t think this can happen until the year after next, but let’s talk about it.

I think the hardest one could be deciding who is responsible for assigning a level to each course with working out how to allocate points running a close second. Perhaps we should be trialling this in parallel to the existing system and then adjusting so that positions are approximately the same.

I also think we need to think about newcomers to the sport as they won't have an allocated bib and there are a lot that come and race once only. Perhaps there is a case for keeping separate "novice" slaloms. Once someone has competed successfully at a novice slalom they become a ranked paddler and get a bib etc.

[jjayes]

There is a interesting link to a new paddle parent who's kids were inspired by the Olympics. I think in encouraging new paddlers to the sport he speaks a lot of sense and its worth a full look at his story.

He say's

"Thinking of what I’ve seen parents do over the years to successfully introduce their children to paddling, I’m struck by a couple of things:

They made it fun.
They encouraged their kids to make friends and enjoy the social side of the sport (see point 1).
They were encouraging and supportive regardless of competitive results.
They made sure their kids learned how to paddle safely and make good decisions on the river.

When you look at it like this, it all seems pretty obvious. But having now been a Dad for nearly 19 years, I’ve learned that good parenting isn’t always easy or obvious."

http://paddleblogs.com/mally/2012/10/02 ... ng-parent/

[BaldockBabe]

I think something that has only just been touched on here but was talked about on the banks of the Trywerwyn is the affect that this may have on personal/ club sponsorship.

As a club Baldock was able to get funding for a new slalom boat on an annual basis by showing evidence that their had been improvements in the standard of slalom at the club. This was "evidenced" by newpaper reports showing that x had come in the top 3 of Div y event. Or A had been promoted from Div B to Div A etc etc. This was backed up by showing the ranking lists for the relevant divisions. The new system would not allow for that evidence of success. Moving from 350th in the country to 300th is not as impressive to anyone outside of the sport as being promoted from Div 4 to Div 3. It would also (on a side note but obviously effects clubs that benefit from local publicity) affect the ability to "sell" articles to the local papers.

At a personal level parents on the riverbank were stating that their children had got funding because they were able to show rapid progress through the divisions and/ or were now in the top 10 in Div 1 progressing towards Prem etc. Again, potential sponsors would not be interested in someone currently 50th in the country (i.e. a top 10 Div 1) as it does not have the same kudos (even if we know it is the same thing).

What are other people's thoughts on this?