Should all categories be related to K1M times?

[alldaypaddler]

This is more of a suggestion than a rant.

I've been to lots of races where the times can be very spread out. Take the example of the Div 2 and Pan Celtic at Tully.
The best Div 1 K1M time was 90.31. In the K1W, first place was 100.94 - 1000 points. However, in second place the time was 8 seconds (significantly) slower, but received 972 points.

Then if you look at the Div 2 K1W, nobody outside the top 4 completed a run without a 50 second penalty. so for example, the 4th place time was 138.58, 727 points. 5th place was 183.13 (a huge time difference) but received points of 636 in accordance with current rules.

In these kind of cases, shouldn't points be allocated according to the competitiveness of the paddler's time (by comparing it to K1M, or the first place time from that category)? This happens largely in the lower division women's categories, because there aren't enough people to make the race competitive - meaning that some people can turn up knowing it'll be an 'easy' race, and can do well because there aren't many good people there.

I have personally been in this position - where i managed a third place which was 6 seconds slower than first place, and I feel I should have been given less points than I was, because my time wasn't very competitive.

[Jaytee]

What an interesting thought!
So is the suggestion that a division with (say) 5 faster & 5 slower paddlers would have the points allocated according to their scores (like 1000,980,960,950,925,425,400,200,180,40) rather than 1000,900,800,700 etc. ?
I think this would change the approach of many paddlers.

Are you also suggesting that the points for the C1W paddlers (for example) are based on the fastest K1M (with a multiplier maybe)? If that were the case, how would the 'slower' classes ever get enough points for promotion?

I'm sure there are many if & buts, but its a good topic to debate.

[alldaypaddler]

well, i suppose it would take some thinking, but i guess it would work something like I think C2 and C1W works, with percentages compared to the K1M.
I guess the only problem with that is that on different types of courses, the extra strength that boys have can count for more.
So maybe it would be better to have the paddler in 1st getting 1000 points and then everyone getting points compared to their time.

[PeterC]

And in the DIv 1 at Tully on the Sunday in the K1M

1st with 93 seconds got 1000
2nd with 97 seconds got 981
3rd with 101 seconds got 962

There were also another 11 paddlers who were less than 8 seconds slower than 3rd.

24th to 26th inclusive were all within 4 hundredths of a second of each other.

I can see where you are coming from but at the end of the day the ranking points allow us to rank competitors with a reasonable degree of fairness over a number of races.

[lesf]

i guess it would work something like I think C2 and C1W works, with percentages compared to the K1M.

C2 and C1W points calculations have changed this year - if the event is quorate they are calculated in the same way as K1M. If classes are inquorate (and that includes C1M, C1W, C2 and K1W) they are compared to K1m results with a multiplier - as suggested.

I believe the french have a system where all results are compared to a base paddler for points calculation - I'm sure others know much more about that than I do and can expand further

[automart]

Paddlers in C2 looking for promotion to Prem /1 from 2/3 would be better off entering races where there is a better chance of the race not being quorate, as they are likely to gain more points then a race that is quorate...

Should this be the case ?


Should the same points calculation system apply if a race is quorate or not..? Surely this would lead to a fairer ranking system ?
For example;

Washburn C2 Quorate race (5 Boats) Saturday: 2nd place recieves 833 points and 3rd place recieves 667 points.

Wasburn C2 Non Quorate race (3 Boats) Sunday: 2nd place recieves 982 points and 3rd place recieves 927 points.

So perhaps all classes should be compared to K1M times , or all classes have their own points system but not a mixture.

[HaRVey]

An Interesting insight/discussion.

I shall weigh in...

What happens to all the points when the top paddler is either a lot better or a lot worse?
(the average paddler receive's 500 points; when the top paddler is alot better the average paddler is more likely to get 250 points, and when the top paddler is alot worse the average paddler is more likely to get 750 points.)
The first example frequently occurs when the GBR Team turn up, or when an ex-prem paddler gets demoted to Div 1, due to lack of attendance in races, or a Prem paddler in another division applies for ranking status in another category.
The second example occurs towards the end of the season in Div1, and when races are scheduled inappropriately to meet the requirements of the sport (having 5 races in 1 month), or top K1M paddlers do not attend, such as the Tully Prem Races 4 & 5 this year.)

With these examples, how well you do, and how quickly you get promoted, is no longer a comparison of your ability compared with all of the paddlers who paddle down the course, and only a comparison with one person this therefore has the highest level of gross error in the calculation of points.

This explains the position at Washburn where the 2nd place quorate race gained 833points, whilst the non-quorate 2nd place gained 982 points.

At Grandtully Premier race, this error was highlighted again but in the opposite direction.
Saturday, 7 C2's Enter (Quorate) a share of the 1000 points, 1st = 1000, 2nd = 857, 3rd = 714 etc..
Sunday, 2 C2's Enter (Non-quorate) points according to the best man, 1st place = 581, 2nd place = 161pts

In this race it is far better to be quorate that non.
I hope this clearly highlights, the inherent error associated with differences between the top paddlers ability on that particular course, and the rest of the respective participants.

The consequence of this:
Having a quorate based scoring systematic system, with equal allocation of points down from 1000, enables the rankings to reflect the respective ability of ONE BOAT vs ANOTHER BOAT in that particular class, as apposed to reflecting the ability of ONE BOAT vs the ABILITY OF THE BEST K1M, THAT TURNED UP.
This in turn leads to a promotion system based on relative ability (i.e. there will be around 10-15 promoted K1M from Div 1 in a season), rather than relative strength of your category there could be 10 women promoted from Div1, in 3 races, as they all get 1000pts. (right now (with our current ranking system) this would appear like its because they are good enough, but after this system had eroded the level of ability for a while, the level attained by the promotees would be less, and less, and less than was at first required.

This principle of comparison with the K1M, however is used for %, which is used by GB Canoeing to determine funding levels, support, coaching and GBR Teams and used many times during their training sessions during a season.
They also have a performance matrix which shows the respective % required by age and category (to be deemed as not slow enough to be embarrassing? / or should that be finish in the top half?).
Interestingly, it doesn't appear to mention anything about the difficulty of the water, the level of the top K1M, or any other factor that may play a part in arbitrarily defining who isn't eligible to take part in some races, regardless of their placing relative to others in the race.

I'll leave you all to decide your own opinion on this, mine is quite clear .... why not simply use % as a guide to say 'Well Done', and give every person a chance to race based on their position in the selection race (i.e. if their are 3rd in the team, and there are 3 places let the 3rd person race, at ALL LEVELS (the individuals can pay for travel/entry themselves if its an issue of funding), but surely it must be better for our Sport in GBR to have our young paddlers (junior, u23 and Senior) taking advantage of every racing opportunity, especially those on an international stage, so they don't face the errosion of their potential skill level over time.

For me allowing more people to take part; promotes our sport, gets those individuals experienced (so they will be better at performing in the future), and their is ZERO negative impact on the team. (i.e. sending a person who comes in the bottom 5, is no worse than sending no-one, which also leads to the TEAM Event unable to be completed.)

Robin

[mikeincanadian]

I believe, that on a race day, if there is quorate K1W but not quorate C1W, then there should be a different multiplier were C1W are compared to K1W. This would even things out a bit more on physical courses.

[jjayes]

It amazes me that we even use percentages to compare classes, it simply does not work as so much depends on the difficulty of the water and where the gates are, who is racing in the MK1 and their form on the day. If you took the results from Beijing ladies K1 event and thought of it as British Team Selection event, GB would not even had sent a lady. The problem is GB put so much importance on percentages that are unreliable and so meaningless and therefore damaging to the athletes moral and the sport as a whole.

I know how percentages came into the world class equation a few years back as a attempt to set performance standards and the thinking was flawed then too.