Proposal 6.7 - Changes to Women's Points

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:29 am

FatBoy wrote:One last post, then I'll leave it alone. Sorry if this seems argumental, I would call it analytical which is my job/nature.

I doubt any factual answer can be obtained, but we haven't addressed why it should be so that women are further behind men on bigger water in Div 2? I only tend to see the bigger div 2's and even the competent looking paddlers seem to be very catious. Is this because they know they can get good points if they don't make a mistake?

Don't worry - I have taken it at analytical

Then again, perhaps I am the argumentative one here but that is because I feel strongly about it...

It would seem to me that your last point is one of the key issues here, the other being how you can get more women into the sport.

Perhaps rather than arguing over a proposal which I don't think address these issues we should ditch the proposal for a year and have constructive discussions about how we can directly deal with the issues??? I think I will start another post about that!!!

80-1219672301 · Post by **80-1219672301** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:20 pm

"I doubt any factual answer can be obtained, but we haven't addressed why it should be so that women are further behind men on bigger water in Div 2? I only tend to see the bigger div 2's and even the competent looking paddlers seem to be very catious. Is this because they know they can get good points if they don't make a mistake? "

Hmmm - this is bordering on the very impolite.
I think your comment regarding "... they know they can get good points if they dont make a mistake" is ridiculous. Is white water slalom not also about the technical discipline of the sport and not just brute strength and speed?

Getting through a tricky gate cleanly to my mind is more skilful than bombing down a course at mac 5 whalloping every gate!

I think we must have been at different Div 2 events on big water last season. The women I saw on these courses showed skill and determination. Yes some of them initially were nervous of the big water which makes their achievement even more impressive. By the same token I observed, albeit with an untrained eye, div2 men swimming on bigger water because they hadn't been "cautious" enough on occassion!

c1champ · Post by **c1champ** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:36 pm

It takes the men more time to get promoted from 3-1 than it does women. Surely this means that the women must be of a lower standard compared to men when they reach div 1? Nothing to do with the fact that women are worse paddlers, just that they don't have the time to improve their paddling skills as they get so quickly promoted through the divisions. Shouldn't we be addressing the speed in which women are getting promoted, which this proposal will do, so that they are at the standard they should be when they reach div 1? Comparing them to the men, who make slower progress through the divisions should do this. Why would this be considered offensive to women?

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:55 pm

Arghh
! I wish there was a "banging your head against a brick wall" icon on here!

C1champ - many people on here have acknowledged that this would not slow promotion of those girls that are promoted for being fast on flat water, so I cannot see how this will achieve what you claim it will achieve.

beano · Post by **beano** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:43 pm

I don't believe this proposal achieves anything. The main issue is one of competition. The size of the divisions is generally in the region of 2:1 (male:female). All the girls achieving promotion this year have earned it. There has been intense competition at the top of division 1 and generally all the girls going from div2 to div 1, have also risen to the challenge of the bigger water. If they don't they will be demoted. It is a simple procedure currently in operation which works, so why propose a change?
I hope this motion is defeated as there has been insufficient time to assess the effect. Some clubs haven't discussed at membership level.
I have taken a quick look at the div 1 results and find there would have been no promotions except for the girls with 3 wins (assuming it doesn't change to 5). Without a larger turnover of promotees/demotees I believe the divisions could stagnate. A clear set of rules for end of season promotion would then be needed to give each division the right level of fresh blood. So why change what works and means men and women are no longer treated equally?

And yes C1champ it is offensive to be treated differently that is why there are laws governing equal opportunities. I bet if you looked hard enough you could find men who had progressed as quickly.

What standard exactly should a paddler be at in div 1. Isn't it relative to everyone else?

oldandslow · Post by **oldandslow** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:55 pm

But have all the people that state that fact actually done any calculations? I would say that Matlock, Sowerby and Bala Mill are all pretty flat, but the majority of paddlers would gain fewer points at these events using these calculations, particularly the weaker paddlers at the bottom end of the division. These are the paddlers who gain more and more points once the better paddlers have been promoted. At Matlock on Sunday, the winner would get max points and the others less. At the first Sowerby, the winner both days and the 2nd on Saturday would get max or higher points, but the others less. Both days at Bala the top 3 all get less points.

I heartily agree that more female paddlers, more competition is the answer, but this is a long term solution, in the meantime use the numbers we've got in the men's division to help make the points fair to reflect actual ability rather than absence of competition. The percentage allows for the differences between the sexes, so it's not at all offensive.

oldandslow · Post by **oldandslow** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:25 pm

You've lost me with the equal opportunities line, Beano... so what're you saying? Scrap the K1W and have M and W competing on an equal footing? Now that really should stop the speedy promotion problem amongst the K1W!

oldandslow · Post by **oldandslow** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:35 pm

I've just looked at the end of season Sowerby results... pretty much a flat div 2? The top women of both div 2 and div 3 on both days would have drastically fewer points!

beano · Post by **beano** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:29 pm

Perhaps equal opportunities was not the right phrase - more equal application of the rules.

I still can't see the point in tinkering with the system, the divisions are relative to the participants in them and in order to progress there needs to be the challenge of more difficult water. The rate of progression once in div 1 is down to committment and training.

Anyway does anyone know how was the figure of 1.12 derived, is it based on scientific research or just a number plucked out of the air?

This motion requires more debate at all levels.

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:11 am

In division 2 (from my calculations on my BlackBerry so may need double checking) 27% of all women who entered this year got promoted, 25% of all men that entered got promoted. I would suggest that this is not statistically significant and does not actually indicate that it is easier for women to get promoted.

Anyway, I guess it is late now and a decision will be made by a group of people sitting in a room without much consultation with those affected. I hope that you guys think carefully and that our clubs vote counts?

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:39 am

The figures for Division 1 are just under 8% for women and just over 8% for men. Is there really a disparity between men and women?

Non paddler · Post by **Non paddler** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:36 pm

I do not think the case has been made that this proposal helps equip woman for Div 1 better. And there is a risk that it could be demotivating. The stats given previously for Div 1 in this thread were:

"HPP (Kim W) 912pts
Llandysul 1 (Charlotte L) 950pts
Llandysul 2 (Charlotte L) 1000pts
Llangollen (Helen M) 784pts "

This implies really good performances on hard water would not always be rewarded with points that would count to promotion, how can that be a postive?

I do not see why we should bring in a rule that so complicates ranking points calculations on what I think is more a hunch than a proven strategy that this would equip women better for the next divsion.

I think the objective to ensure women are ready for the Div 1 so they are not put off completely by the step up in water difficulty is good. However saying that I think Town Falls showed that there is a really good cohort of newcomers to K1W Div 1 that coped very well with the conditions and indicated that the standard of Div 1 K1W is in pretty good shape.

Wonder how the vote will go today!?!

.

80-1219672301 · Post by **80-1219672301** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:40 pm

"in the meantime use the numbers we've got in the men's division to help make the points fair to reflect actual ability rather than absence of competition"

I'm really confused now - fair for who? As you rightly pointed out men and women dont compete against each other. If I remember correctly the original proposal was to slow down promotion in the womens divisions to make it "safer" for women paddlers. As has been pointed out it wont slow down promotion and it will deter women from competing - is this what is really wanted??
[/I]

oldandslow · Post by **oldandslow** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:58 pm

The debate is over for the time being... the motion was discussed at length and was rejected more to benefit the organisers and ranking list compliers than the paddlers.

Someone needs to think of another way to ensure that the girls at div 2 and 3 have adequate time in that division to gain experience before being promoted to the harder water. Girls should not be rewarded with high points if they are getting 50's on qualifying runs. Surely noone can deny that our boys are considerably better than the girls in the same division.

Someone needs to think of a proposal that will work and put a proposed motion on here well before the next ACM in order for discussions to take place and a revised motion be submitted at the next ACM.

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:31 pm

Thanks Oldandslow for the update. As, after being very dappy, I have worked out who you are I suggest we have a natter during the year and try and think of something.