Sprint point system

[mike reid]

After the 2007 wrc the IRF changed the point system for the sprint.
Creating two events Time Trial 100 points and H2H 200. I have no issues with the TT being worth 100. My question is by making the H2H only worth 200 points have we devalued this event to much. The skills a team must have to go far in or win the H2H are many. They must have a quick start, focused, strong, powerful, have endurance, the skill to navigate the course cleanly, and yes a little luck. Why are those skills less valued than the skills it takes to win the slalom? It seams to me they are the same. Some of the most memorable moments form all the WRC have been H2H races. If you listen to the spectators they love the H2H. Its why we started racing, to see who can get to the finish first. In order to grow our sport we need to value this the H2H. I am by no means saying the H2H should be more than the slalom, it should at least be equal.

Mike Reid
Team USA

[intraftfed]

Hi Mike

You're not the first to raise this point - lets see what other come back with.

Cheers
Sue

[stan]

Hi Mike, yes, untill 2007 was Sprint ( incl. H2H) and slalom in balance of power. Each for 300 points. Now - sprint is only 100 p. and H2H is very dependent by sprint.
And You know, that the fair start in H2H is not easy to arranged.
I saw back to a few WRC - who was ahead in 5 second, the was first in finish line.
According this experiences goes my persuasion - Sprint and H2H muss be 300 points like slalom. Cheers
Stan

[mike reid]

Hello Stan

Thank you for responding to my question. Not sure i completly understand your position on the point system. Are you in support of the current system where the 300 points for the sprint are split between the Time Trial 100 and the H2H 200. Or the old system in which The Time Trial was 0 points and the H2H was 300. I feel that the H2H should be worth 300. It does not matter to me if there are 100 points for the TT. I Know it is important to many that there are points for the TT.

As to your claim that at one WRC the team that was ahead at 5 sec. won everytime and the starts can never be fair. I strongly disagree. I have raced in every WRC since 2003. The US team has raced more H2H races than any other team since that time. So I feel we have prespective on the matter. I can only comment on races we have been in I do not get the chance to see every race.

Let start with WRC 2003:
I know the team that was ahead after 5 Sec. did not when every race because the US team was never ahead after 5 sec. and we won 5 races. We even won our only race from the "unfair lane".

WRC 2005:
We were behind ,racing the Czech team, and we came back to win from the " unfair lane". I watched the Canadian team from the slow "unfair lane" go passed us. We came back to win that race. So once again the team that is winning after 5 sec. or in the fast lane does not always win.

WRC 2007:
Heres where I admit you have a point. But I do not feel you should change the point system based on one event. There were lots of problems in 2007 the least was the sprint start. However, the New Zealand womans team as i recall won form the "unfair lane".

WRC 2009:
I watched several teams who were behind after 5 sec. and in the "unfair lane" comeback to win. We were even able to do it against Brazil, the best team in the world.

Pre-worlds 2009

I watched teams win from the"unfair lane". We won twice from that lane. We were lossing after 5 sec. in those races.

Thats my responce to your claims based on my experence. I know a team can win if they are behind after 5 sec. and i don't buy your claim that one lane is "unfair". There are advantages and disadvantges to both lanes. It is up to the teams to find them. The moment a teams belives their lane is "unfair" they lose. Our team and others have proven that.

Look forward to your reply
best wishes
Mike

[mongo@mongoproducts.com]

I don't disagree that the sprint event should be awarded 100 points. I do however, disagree with the H2H event being devalued. The H2H requires a level of tactical skill that is not found in the sprint. This is why Historicaly the teams that have won the sprint have not done well in the H2H.
The H2h not only involves power and timing but is also a test of reflexes and resolve where the team that is able to adapt and overcome is the victor. This is what makes it a crowd favorite and I think worthy of the same 300 points awarded for the other disciplines. Add in the fact that the road to winning a H2H event requires a minimum of 4 victorious battles! That is good racing!

Chris

[stan]

Hi Mike,
Yes, Your sentences are very interesting and show me Your long experiences in the team USA - congratulate. I understand your point of view.

But Your example has got one of the lapse - there are not situation from the first heat H2H with the start acording the results of the time trial.
Show here please:

WRC 2003 - In the first heat won all of 8 teams from the best line in the men group, 3 of 4 women ( but the czech was penalized for premature paddel )
WRC 2007 - men -6 of 8 in the first heat won from better line, all 4 women in the first heat won from better line.
PRE-WORLD 2009 Zoetermeer - 13 mens team won, only 3 losed ( weaker teams - inclusive me - on 14.,15.,16 position after TT. 5 women teams won, 3 losed ( 2 teams swam ).
Yes, in second, third heat - there are different situation. Your time for the higher heat is dependent on your contact or non contact with the opposite.
I am in persuasion - the team carries his point from TT to start of H2H.
My experience is : the best position for start in H2H to be 4th position in TT.
I am sorry for my poor english, I hope You understand me.
We are looking on the H2H race from different angle only.
For me - H2H - it is hard sprint race with success by 25% results of TT, 25% good luck, 25% power and 25% tactic.

I think 100 point TT, 200 point H2H , 300 point Slalom and 400 points for downriver is good, but the older points system with 300 point TT+H2H was better.
Regards from Prague
Stan

[mike reid]

Hey Stan

First, your english is very good and i appreciate that you take the time to respond in english. Saddly all the Czech I remenber is pivo. And please let my buy you one the next time our paths cross. We could discuss the details of each sprint event at length. As much fun as that would be we should save that for beer. My reasons for posting on the form was to get the views of others on the sprint/H2H point system. I am happy to know that someone with your knowledge and influnce agrees that there is a better system than the current point system. It is our responsblity it make our sport the best we can. I hope others will respond to this form, I would like to hear the opinions of everyone. I will contact the IRF and do what it take to bring this issue to the rules and comp. committee. If there is aggrement that there is a better system we need to work to implemnet that system.

Mike

[DonPedro]

To get things right. Points for TT exixted 1997-2000, it was a controversal BOD decission at the WRC in Futalufu to link TT and h2h into one competition. After this, we had a lot of discussion within the BOD if the TT deserves its own points. There were WRC's, when the winners of the TT was eliminated first round, not making it into the quarterfinals due to several reasons and getting no big points. Just unfair being the fastest ending up not better than 9th. At the congress 2007 the vast majority of the nations voted in favour of the reintroducing points for the TT as it was before. At the congress 2009 it was brought foreward again by interested parties to abolish separate points 100/200 again, but in two votes the majority still was in favour. Now the discussion is opened again towards connecting the points of TT and h2h. How more often? Until once there will be a majority in a future congress to do so?
One argument is not mentioned up to now. Separate disciplines means, one more medal to win. Do you want to loose it? Having 4 instead of 5?

Cheers.

Peter

[mike reid]

Hey Peter

Thank you for your input on this issue. Your knowledge is greatly respected. First, the skills a team needs to do well in the H2H are different that the TT. I don't feel sorry, or think races are unfair if a team which is supposedley faster, has choose of lane, losses the race. People need to stop feeling sorry for teams that loss. That is what happens when teams race one wins and one losses. Teams are not intitled to win in H2H because their faster or that lane choice. Teams still have to go out there and win. Second, i am not saying we should combine H2H and sprint. I think it great that the TT is worth 100 points, it should be worth points, and you have another chance at a medal. This was a good rule change. My issue is that we took the 100 points from the H2H. I feel that the H2H should be worth 300 points as it was for many WRC. It sounds from your account form IRF meeting over the years that commen ground has not been reached on this issue. I agree we should find a point systems that work so we can put this issue to rest.

mike

[DonPedro]

Hi Mike,

I got you right and understood well what you are meaning. I only want to make sure that the TT ends up with zero points again as it was 2001-2007. For my own personal feeling we could give the 100 points to the h2h from the downriver, having 100+300+300+300 = 1000 or even 100+250+300+350. Though I still think the increasing figures 100+200+300+400 are easy to remember and show more the intension of the point system keeping the overall competition interesting to the end, preventing a dead race in the DR. But this only works if the DR is the last race. In Bosnia 2009 it was not working as DR was the 3rd competition. Only the big changes in the results of the previous disciplines kept in open to the end then.

[mike reid]

Hey Peter

I am happy to see that there is little difference in our views. I agree that the DR should be worth the most points and should be the last event. The history of our sport is DR and for the reasons you listed and others little if any change should come from the DR. Our team feels that the H2H and the slalom should be equal. H2H 250 and Slalom 250. I understand my personal bias is to the H2H. We are a good H2H team and a bad Slalom team. I feel the skills a team must have to do well in the H2H are equal, but different than the Slalom. It is difficult to race the TT and then 5 H2H races against world class compition. Then to get 100 less points than the slalom is wrong. People who feel the slalom should be worth 100 points, or 10% more than the H2H, are personally bias for the slalom. I am not saying the H2H should be worth more than the slalom. Only equal.

Mike

[paz]

I believe the views of the British racers are very similar to yours mike. We to are a team who traditionally have been better at H2H over slalom although we got a lot closer in the slalom in 2007. The skills needed for each event are different but equally merited and should be scored accordingly, 300 points for slalom 300 points for H2H. I believe this because the aim should be to have reasonable fair starts meaning teams can win from either side as was the case in Bosnia so the element of luck is only the same which exists in other events. A team hoping for a top four finish has to win at least three different races, the more popular the sport becomes the more this number goes up. It is a whole day of races and many more elements for a team to over come. At present after five hard races beating the best teams in the world the winners can finish the whole day of racing with little over 200 points if they had a bad TT. Equally a poor H2H team with one quick TT sprint can finish after two runs with well over half of that score.

I do believe in the DR being the last event and scoring more points but if the river does not push the athletes skills it is hard to support this. I would find it hard to support a 100+250+250+400 break down if the river was not similar to the grade of the water in Korea or harder as we risk the DR becoming a pure test of athletic fitness and not rafting ability. My thought would be towards a 100+300+300+400, unless this total score of 1100 causes a problem but mathematically I cant see why it would. Glad its being discussed looking forward to seeing you all soon.

[mike reid]

Hey Paz

good to hear from you boyz hope, your winter consisted of lots of beer and watching t.v.. I have no problem with 100 300 300 400. I think some people might have a hard time with 1100 points. I don't.

Mike

[intraftfed]

Hi Guys

I agree with Paz's comment -

we risk the DR becoming a pure test of athletic fitness and not rafting ability

. Which is dependent on the river grade (or rains). We saw this happening in Bosnia.

Maybe this would be too complicated, but what about DR being for 300 points if its Grade 3 and 400 points if its over Grade 3? I mean, I could take a raft down the Tara happily (and I have been in a raft about twice in the last 5 years!). Whereas the Pacuare Grade 4 section ... different story entirely. SKILL is needed there.

Cheers
Sue

[DonPedro]

Hi guys, whatever total score we choose, it should be easy to remember for media and public. I do not care if it is 100, 1000, 10000 points as long is easy to remember for any spectator, reporter or news correspondent. Think logicly and math straight forward. This is why I favour 1+2+3+4=10.

[mike reid]

Hey Peter

So your saying your real reason for having the slalom worth 100 more points than the H2H is a math problem. I think everyone can add 4 numbers together. So why can't we do 1+3+1+3=10 or 1+1+1+1=4. If we go to your 1+2+3+4=10 system, as you want for the easy math, that means for every team that does not finish first we have to do fractions. Now, i am pretty sure that is some complated math. I noticed in all of your examples the H2H and Slalom are never equal. It's hard for me to belive math is your real reason against the slalom and the h2h being equal. I value your views so please put them out there.

Mike

[DonPedro]

Hi Mike,

just sitting on the screen for more than an hour now to dig deeper in discussion, and when I pressed submit...story gone.
But to answer in short. I am not against having 2h2 and slalom weighing eqaual. We also can think about slalom 200 and h2h 300 points.
Mark, is my story disappeard in Nirvana now?? Or can you retrieve it somewhere in the system?
Thanks.

Peter

[paz]

I can see the point of trying to keep the scoring simple for spectators and a like but I think we already have a hard system to understand. After the final event in Bosnia I had no idea of the overall points or positions of the teams this was half of the fun. The winner gets a fixed amount of points and everyone else gets a percentage lower but the maximum amount can be 100, 200, 350 it doesn't matter how much that fixed total is to the average spectator, coach or athlete. We simply need to be happy with the weighting of the events in my opinion.

Pas

[intraftfed]

Just a comment on Peter losing his entry - a warning - there is a time out, so if you are spending some time writing something long and complex, save it elsewhere or write it elsewhere and then paste it in. I have learnt THAT the hard way!

Sorry Peter, its gone.

Cheers
Sue

[mike reid]

Hey Peter

Will I just did the same and lost a long post.
Frist, if we agree that H2H and slamon should be equal then we should work to make that happen. If there is anyone reading this who feels the curent system is better with the H2H 200 points and slalom being 300 please respond. If we don't discuss issues that are important to our sport it will never grow.
Second, I don't feel our scoring system is to complex. The purpose of a scoring system is to give value to the order in with teams place in an event. One quality it must have is depth. We need a point range with a high end to the scale i.e 1000 points. If we picked a number like 10 how would we ranking 30 team. The system would become more complex than we already have.

Paz

The problem as i see it, is not the system is to complex. I feel the system is fairly simple. The problem is a logistic and communcation. In Bosnia the scene at the end of the slamon was chaos. There were bigger problems than getting the results out . Back to your point. There should be no reason for result being delayed as fast a the results go in results go out. We have computers to crank the number. We needed a fast way to dispurce those results.

I thought it was great how the final results changed so much at the very end. That keeps people interseted to the last race. We should incourage this. Let bring the % difference in the places closer. That would make the last event mean so much more.

Lost my thoughts
Mike

[paz]

Sorry i didn't explain my point very well, I agree the scoring system is not to complex. I simply believe that as a spectator I don't think you can do the maths of the points as you are watching. Which is totally fine but it does mean that if you change the total points to 1100 or an event maximum to 300, or 400 its doesnt matter to the spectators, they understand the basic principle of the scoring. What I believe is the most important aspect is that the points for the events are weighted correctly. The effort and skill involved in each event needs to be fairly reflected in its points reward. If we can do this and it works out with easy numbers 1+2+3+4=10 then great but we shouldn't be worried about 1+3+3+4=11 (or other options) if that is a more fair reflection, just because its not as straight forward.

Regards Pas
.

[stan]

Hi guys,
As I saw, for me is TT and H2H together on the some level as slalom.
Try see it in eyesight of the team which wish to win WRC.
For TT and H2H, you need 2 good backwards and 4 strongest paddlers.
For DR you need the some, extra need You 2 very good forwards, if the river is difficult ( like in Korea, Chile, Czech rep.)
But for slalom You need not only 2 experienced backwards and forwards, You need a long time train with the complete team. For the championship , there must to be 6 heads with 1 thinking.
My mind is - we should leave the scoring system how is today, but we have to choose harder rivers for championships in rafting.
I know, this is the difference between american and european conception and view on the rafting race.
And in present goes rafting here to the artificial courses and downriver is becoming cross rafting.
Cheers
Stan

[mike reid]

Hey Stan

I respect that we have different views. We will never be able to convince each other which dicipline has more value interms of the overall value. I think we should stop linking the TT points to the H2H points. They are really two seprate events. The debate over the value of the H2H vs. Slalom will never be solved. It will allways be personal oppion. The difference in views are good for the sport. However, as the points stands now it favors the view that Slalom has more value. If the H2H and the slalom were equal if would favor neither view. It would be a compermize.

As to your point that the DR needs to be on a harder river. Yes, Yes, Yes! That takes me back to Paz's comment "we risk the DR becoming a pure test of athletic fitness and not rafting ability". Unless will are willing to race on steep class 5 creeks or super high volume fitness will always play a large roll in who wins the DR. It sould be that way. I am not sure what you mean by rafting ability. All the top 10 teams can run 4-5 fast. Teams are to skilled to have that be the difference. No team will wins a WRC in 4-5 rapids they only lose. If a team has fitness, can be clean in the rapids, runs the class 2-3 fast, and has a great strategy they will do well in the DR.

Once you bring in a river like that: there is a larger element of luck, some teams will take a huge beat down, and i will have much more fun. All good things.

We need to change the DR, since prior to 2003 we have not been on a hard river. If we we want our sport to grow we need to go back to our roots.

Mike