Slalom Struture - The structure of doemstic competition

[davewaine]

The time limitations of the timing team and section judges are obviously a factor to be considered.
Do we need either???
Why not just have two judges per section at Div 1 level for 2011 and for 2012 insist that at least one is a qualified gate judge. (and run more gate judging exams in the meantime to train people).
Some clubs have their own timing kit and Tutty is available to hire. Why not have a few photo beam gates available (not very expensive anyway) for clubs to use with their timers or Tutty?
Timing to .1 sec for Div 1 is adequate.

[Munchkin]

Has anyone from the timing team actually said there was a problem? I can't see that written down anywhere... Perhaps rather than making assumptions people should actually get the facts. It was this very assumption in Duncan's post that offended me in the first place.

Perhaps this discussion should focus on the issues raised by the paper.

[Dee]

Munchkin

No wish to offend but I think the comments are based on a paragraph in the paper

The section judge and timing teams are being asked to give up almost every weekend. In the 2010 calendar there were over 20 weekends where section judging/timing was required, an average of an event every other week to be
timed/judged, allowing principle volunteers little life outside volunteering.

This appears to be one of the reasons given for limiting the number of div 1 events. Hence those who want to keep more events and reduce travel are looking at ways to reduce the load on the timing team and section judges. No-one is trying to offend you, I promise.

[Dee]

Dave

Timing to .1 sec for Div 1 is adequate.

I think this may depend on the course. Some events are very close and this could create some best run ties. Having said that, I don't see why clubs shouldn't use their own equipment and agree that it should be possible to run div 1s without section judges (or perhaps reduced numbers of section judges, so that we just have a section judge on likely problem gates). In div 1/2 events it would be perfectly reasonable to give section judges a break during div 2 racing so that fewer section judges would be required

[Flipper]

Fup Duck's illuminating survey in the other thread listed 60 sites which have been lost to the sport over recent years.
Over that time the number of participants has dropped (I hear) 80%.
Einstein said: "Insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result". Time to acknowledge the severity of the problem and tackle it differently. The entry-level and development structure needs to be rebuilt by activists who can bring in new ideas. How is the sport organised in France?

[JamesH]

I agree with some of the comments that the grade of water paddled in respective divisions, at least up to div 2 has got easier over the past decade until recently.

I started slalom in 1997 and remember racing at the likes of HPP and the Tryweryn Graveyard in div 3. The problem dates back to the removal of div 5 as the entry level about a decade ago due to falling numbers. Unfortunately there seemed to be a mad rush in the aftermath to downgrade the water that div 2&3s in particular paddled on to take account of the fact that div 4 was now the entry level.

However, I think things have improved somewhat over the past year or two and as and old(ish) and slow div 2 paddler but with lots of white water experience, I think the calander for this year has been pretty well balanced, with a decent number of div 2s on good water (3 HPPs, 3 Tullys, 4 Abbey Rapids - ok level was dog low, but that's life). Just a pity no Tryweryn - I think many div 2s are perfectly capable of handling the Graveyard.

Back to the main point at issue, however, I have long since come around to the following view:

Discontinue the divisional system and have one national league
Sites are given a 'degree of difficulty' by which points gained at a race at that site are multiplied - thus Tully may have a difficulty of 1, Matlock 0.5 etc.
Paddlers and coaches can then choose to race at whichever site fits in with their own development and not be constrained by other's perceptions of what they are capable of in a divisional system
The best paddlers will progress faster, others will move at a slower rate
Those of us who are long over the hill in terms of racing to the top will still be able to satisfy our cravings for challenging water

However, I suspect that this will again largely be ignored as there seems to be an inbuilt knee jerk reaction in favour of the divisional system in the UK slalom fraternity

[Flipper]

Now THAT's radical JamesH! Well out of the box!
I don't think they have a divisional structure in France. Maybe someone can confirm this. But whatever we do THE RANKING SYSTEM AND NICK'S BRILL WEBSITE ARE THE MOST POWERFUL MOTIVATIONAL TOOLS WE HAVE. Bet they have ranking abroad. How does that work? And if they don't have divisions, do they miss out on the kudos/recognition that juniors get when that promotion day arrives? And the buzz of actually WINNING even if at D4. Big factors at stake here. You can see mums' n dads hearts bursting with pride. It's all over facebook within minutes of the kids getting home. But that's me observing the benefits of what we have. Maybe there's a better way...........

[oldschool]

But france is massive compared to the UK. Its at least double the area to be covered, and as the thread is pointing out we don't use most of the uk anyway!

[davebrads]

However, I suspect that this will again largely be ignored as there seems to be an inbuilt knee jerk reaction in favour of the divisional system in the UK slalom fraternity

I think that this is a little unfair, but a sentiment that will probably be shared by a certain white-bearded gentleman smoking a cigar.

While not saying that the way the sport is organised in this country is without its weaknesses, we still manage to produce a disproportionate number of top international paddlers relative to the numbers racing in this country. So we must be doing something right.

[JamesH]

Hi Flipper,

I'm not for a moment suggesting that the ranking system is abandoned, just that there is one national league, thus everyone gets points and a ranking from 1 to however many people have paddled ranking slaloms in the course of that season. That would include division 4 paddlers. There would still be the usual round of prizes at each slalom event and awards at the end of season for the best in class/age group. You could also introduce a new set of end-of-season awards for best newcomers in each class/age category. The only 'prize' that would be lost would be promotions as we would all effectively be in the same 'division'

I cannot claim ownership of this idea - as Dave Bradshaw has hinted, John Sturgees put this idea forward some time ago. Initially I was sceptical, but have been increasingly been drawn to it.

In many ways I agreee with you Dave - we are one of the top slalom countries in the world and thus the old adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it comes to mind'. However, the constant tinkering year-on-year with the divisions/rules/promotions etc., suggest to me that there are worries out there that the future for the sport may not be rosy.

All I'm suggesting that if there is going to be a root and branch review of the strategy for the sport going forward, then all aspects of the sport, including the divisional system, should be up for debate, and that debate should be reasoned and intelligent.

[John Sturgess]

The Managed Calendar system we have - and to judge by the Strategy Paper, nothing is going to change - is what we would get if New Labour ran Tesco:

a) We know better, so we will tell the people what they ought to want, and give it to them whether they like it or not

b) Followed by bankruptcy

However Tesco is not run that way:

a) It uses all methods - but particularly the Club Card - to find out what people want, and that is what they get

b) Expanding market share and highly profitable

As CeeBee points out above (July 6th), there are lots of different people racing in slalom, with lots of different wants. But what they all have in common is this: they want to be able to go and race, ideally on every weekend in the season to maximise their choice, but certainly on a large number of weekends, on the sort of water they like, at whatever level of water that is.

There are two things that prevent that in our system.

1) We have always used our ranking system to tell people what races to race - and more importantly, what races they can’t race. Yes, they can go and judge ... but does Tesco tell people that they can shop after 6.00 p.m. as long as they spend an hour stacking shelves first? We have introduced a concept of ‘not ready to race on Div 1/Prem water’ to replace what should be the judgement of parents and coaches - and paddlers themselves.

2) For several years past there has been a drive to reduce the number of races on the best water - where Div 1 and Prem races are currently held - and it is the latest round of that which has set off this round of comment. This year there are 17 weekends when people can go and race on what we call Div1 and Prem water, as (roughly) there have been for 10 years past: next year there will be 14. To whose benefit?

No complaint about ranking systems: I do not suggest that we should not have one. Most countries have them - but they don’t use them like we do, to stop people racing. Most (in France) or all (everywhere else) events have open entry - including, in Slovakia and the Czech Republic at least, Class C Internationals for 12-year olds!

Nor do they get so hung up about racing on appropriate water in ranking terms: the French have a wonderful system whereby a paddler’s score is compared to that of a mythical ‘perfect paddler’ so that they can get ranking points at any race.

My ultimate dream is open entry for all races, but the way slalom works I have at least a 10 year campaign for that ahead of me (if I live that long).

There are two things that we can do in the interim, however.

One is the ‘super region’ idea floated above by Peter and others, to make race calendars meet what paddlers want. It took years to get the Div 4 structure partially freed up; yet in sailing it is assumed that every club will run racing for its members every weekend of the season.

A second, which you will need to think about:
The Ranking of a Div 2 or Div 1 paddler would still be based on points gained at Div 2 and Div 1 races. However that would be irrelevant to - or at least separate from - promotion. A Div 2 paddler wanting to get into Div 1 would have to beat xx% of the Div 1 paddlers at x races in a season; and a Div 1 paddler wanting to get into Prem would have to beat xx% of the Prem paddlers at x races in a season (I will leave Colin to work out the figures!)

So suddenly instead of preventing them racing, we would be encouraging them!

[Anne]

It always interests me to read how each indivuidual thinks the sport should be run - however few are willing to put their money where their mouth is and join the committee!

Having said that the sport is most sertainly not just about what the committee says or suggests - there is an ACM every year (pretty badly attended) where clubs can put motions forward to be debated by the clubs and voted on - so if you have think you have a better idea - get your club to put it forward for the other clubs to vote on - even if it is "work in progress" however if you put it forward you must be prepared to head up a working party, have the committee ever ignored anything brought in at the ACM - I think not.

Oh I have heard John's ideas now for years, but has he ever taken it to the ACM - no and on this thread is ther first time I have heard anyone else support it!

[Dee]

The paper has been published for discussion but it would appear that the committee have already acted on it, removing Sheppy from the calendar before the ACM. Given your comments, Anne, would it not have been more appropriate to table the draft calendar at the ACM with Sheppy included and a committee motion to remove it.

This way round it is a fait accomplis at the decision of the committee.

Question: Do we have to put forward a motion to put Sheppy back in the calendar, or will this be up for discussion in any case?

Also don't forget that grass roots volunteers are as important (no more so, but no less) than those on the committee. (I know that some do both, but not everyone can do this). Without grass roots volunteers we would have no clubs, no local coaching, no encouraging youngsters to come into the sport, no lower division events ........

[Anne]

My comments were from me personally, not a committee view point.. i am very well aware of ALL levels of involvement - I have been in ther sport for over 30 years at all levels and many of the committee are involved in grass roots events and clubs and we all try to visit lower division events when possible!

There are some initiatives the committee take but will always listen to any arguments, both supporting or against the initiatives. As already said any club can come up with a proposal for the clubs to vote on.

A mandate many years ago was given to the committee to "manage the calender" Shepperton is not the only event to be affected, and in all ther discussions about good water levely (2 years of) it seems to have been forgotten it was nearly axed because of no water!! Why not consider running a div 2/3 a little later in the year - much more appropriate.

Again - these are my personal thoughts, observations and suggestions!

Anne

[Dee]

i am very well aware of ALL levels of involvement

I realise this, and wasn't intending to offend you - if I have I apologise. However, I do think that "join the committee" is often issued when people complain when the complainant is often someone who contributes a great deal elsewhere.

in all ther discussions about good water levely (2 years of) it seems to have been forgotten it was nearly axed because of no water

You are referring to 2006 when we axed the div 1 because we felt the water was too flat to run the event. Water levels for 2007, 8, 9 and 10 have all been suitable for a div 1.

I'd also add that I can think of a prem event that was run on flatter water than we had in 2006 and other events that have been cancelled due to too little/too much water/ inclement weather often at short notice. So Shepperton is hardly unique in this respect.

A mandate many years ago was given to the committee to "manage the calender"

I realise this, but I think that reponding to a discussion paper to axe events from the calendar is rather more "managing" than has been carried out in the past

Why not consider running a div 2/3 a little later in the year

We already run two div 3/4s later in the season. So in terms of getting helpers it can't be too close to those. The time of year that we normally go for because it works for the club is inappropriate for div 3s - we often lose a couple of div 2s when they look at the size of the waves.

Also this would not solve the issue of access to racing for div 1s.

Shepperton is not the only event to be affected

Which I appreciate, so my question should be
"Do those clubs who have had their races removed from the calendar need to put forward a motion to reinstate them, or will this automatically form part of the managed calendar discussion?