a few of my 2 cents, and some participation numbers.
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:19 pm
Below are some interesting participant numbers: Obviously some decline in slalom participation since the mid 90's had to do with the Ocoee olympic bubble bursting, like the dot com stocks, inflated by the excitement generated by the backyard Olympic games in 1996, and its previous 1992 successes.
But I think some of the decline in racer participation in recent years had a lot to do with the 1997 rule of combined runs. Having raced many years under both rules, its my opinion that this took some of the hope (even if it was a false hope) from any weekend warrior, part time racer, etc , that he/she could put down a decent result during any given race. Gone are the days of out of nowhere, flash in the pan runs, or blind hopes to knock off the "top boat". The new rules probably kept some of the veterans on top for a few more years, but made slalom racers have to focus more on consistency to get results than pure speed and the quest for the “ultimate run”. Which made the sport lose a bit of its glamour. Making things feel even more out of reach to the average boater, separating the elite even more from the novice, with little hope to close the gap in reasonable time. Less hope and less opportunity means less competitors and less growth of the sport.
Combined runs made the sport no longer about "the ultimate run", but more like a "not so ultimate sum"....We all recall Lugbill’s near "ultimate run" at the 1989 savage worlds, but does anyone recall a recent "ultimate sum" that can compare? "well if you take that 103.76 by Martikan plus his 105.47, carry your five, multiply by 110.39%, times pi, and do some Jethro Clampett cypherin'….. you get......lets see.....well, I think you get my point...its not very romantic or timeless. Honestly, isnt it hard to visualize someone’s two combined runs in your head, including a lunch break.
And we've all ruined a race (result) with the other combined run, or had little reason to do the last run due to a 50 on a first run. This is terrible way to draw a beginner to the sport, especially in an ever increasingly difficult sport. Back in the day of best of 2 runs (dont forget pratice runs), one could totally blow out on the first run, but still have “hope” of winning on the second. I would bet history has passed by a few absolutely killer runs from slalom athletes in the past 10 years due to the combined rule, and the fact that taking unnecessary risk in the sheer search of unimaginable speed is no longer the quest. Would Lugbill and Hearn have been as innovative in the 80’s if they were under the combined run rule, who knows? And how often have you seen someone put down a killer first run, and unmistakably human nature raises its head, in the form of "dont ruin your first run", so then the racer ends up racing conservative or scared, instead of honestly trying to beat the first runs time. The elitist will inevitably now chime in, “yeh, but not for the top boats”….I say bull!! If you don’t believe me look at the recent 2008 olympic trials results...its all there in combined run, pressure filled black and white.
Many of us have seen some of the crazy headduck C-1 ups that are being done in practice by some of the top (young and limber) C-1's, expecially this day and age of short boats. But they are probably not taking those risk during competition, for example at say Olympic trials, and that we have to thank for the combined run rule...i think this rule is holding back the evolution and athleticism in the sport, not to mention discouraging alot of new recruits. what are spectators missing out on because of this rule, what innovation and creativity is being stiffled under the mantra of "final results".
Dont get me wrong, I’m all for the 2 sec penalty, its much more reasonable. But I think combined runs, while instituted for easier TV viewing, left little thought for the athlete, or building a sports base. I can hear it now...."remember that time when Tony Estanguet put down that killer run, then he watched some video, called his mom, paid his credit card bill online, ate some lunch, and then put down an average clean run 2 hours later to win the gold? Now that was awesome! Destined to be told around the campfire for years!
a few interesting numbers of U.S. competitors:
1994 team trials Ocoee ? C-1's, 17 C-2's
1995 team trials Ocoee 15 C-1's, 12 C-2's
1996 team trials Ocoee 20 C-1's, 10 C-2's
1997 team trials Wausau/SB 19 C-1's, 8 C-2's
1998 team trials wausau 21 C-1's, 8 C-2's
1999 team trials ocoee 19 C-1's, 7 C-2's
2000 team trials ocoee 20 C-1's, 6 C-2's (+1 C-2M)
2001 team trials ocoee 16 C-1's, 6 C-2's
2002 team trials wausau 12 C-1's, 4 C-2's
2003 team trials Southbend 15 C-1's, 6 C-2s
2004 team trials Southbend 16 C-1's 4 C-2's
2005 team trials Durango 10 C-1's, 4 C-2's
2006 team trials southbend ? C-1's, 6 C-2's
2007 team trials charlotte 9 C-1's, 6 C-2's
2008 team trials charlotte 11 C-1's (+3 C-1W), 6 C-2's
1995 Nationals opryland 42 C-1's (+3 C-1W), 12 C-2's (+5 C-2M)
1996 Nationals opryland 36 C-1's (+1 C-1W), 15 C-2's (+5 C-2M)
1997 Nationals Wausau 31 C-1's (+2 C-1W), 8 C-2's (+8 C-2M)
1998 Nationals SouthBnd 39 C-1's (+1 C-1W), 14 C-2's (+5 C-2M)
1999 Nationals wausau 39 C-1's, 7 C-2's (+5 C-2M)
2000 Nationals bakrsfld 19 C-1's (+2 C-1W), 3 C-2's (+3 C-2 M)
2001 Nationals wausau 17 C-1's (+1 C-1W), 6 C-2's (+4 C-2M/W)
2002 Nationals dickerson 18 C-1's (+1 C-1W), 4 C-2's
2003 Nationals wausau ?
2004 Nationals dickerson 26 C-1's, 7 C-2's, (+5 C-2M)
2005 Natnl/PanAm Kern 8 C-1's (+3 CAN), 7 C-2's
2006 Nationals Charlotte ?
2007 Nationals ASCI 17 C-1's, 7 C-2's
my 2 cents, but this is enough for now. my theory is if you go back to best of runs, you'll see much more participation!! even the old retirees will come back out...and thats good for the sport.
trevor
But I think some of the decline in racer participation in recent years had a lot to do with the 1997 rule of combined runs. Having raced many years under both rules, its my opinion that this took some of the hope (even if it was a false hope) from any weekend warrior, part time racer, etc , that he/she could put down a decent result during any given race. Gone are the days of out of nowhere, flash in the pan runs, or blind hopes to knock off the "top boat". The new rules probably kept some of the veterans on top for a few more years, but made slalom racers have to focus more on consistency to get results than pure speed and the quest for the “ultimate run”. Which made the sport lose a bit of its glamour. Making things feel even more out of reach to the average boater, separating the elite even more from the novice, with little hope to close the gap in reasonable time. Less hope and less opportunity means less competitors and less growth of the sport.
Combined runs made the sport no longer about "the ultimate run", but more like a "not so ultimate sum"....We all recall Lugbill’s near "ultimate run" at the 1989 savage worlds, but does anyone recall a recent "ultimate sum" that can compare? "well if you take that 103.76 by Martikan plus his 105.47, carry your five, multiply by 110.39%, times pi, and do some Jethro Clampett cypherin'….. you get......lets see.....well, I think you get my point...its not very romantic or timeless. Honestly, isnt it hard to visualize someone’s two combined runs in your head, including a lunch break.
And we've all ruined a race (result) with the other combined run, or had little reason to do the last run due to a 50 on a first run. This is terrible way to draw a beginner to the sport, especially in an ever increasingly difficult sport. Back in the day of best of 2 runs (dont forget pratice runs), one could totally blow out on the first run, but still have “hope” of winning on the second. I would bet history has passed by a few absolutely killer runs from slalom athletes in the past 10 years due to the combined rule, and the fact that taking unnecessary risk in the sheer search of unimaginable speed is no longer the quest. Would Lugbill and Hearn have been as innovative in the 80’s if they were under the combined run rule, who knows? And how often have you seen someone put down a killer first run, and unmistakably human nature raises its head, in the form of "dont ruin your first run", so then the racer ends up racing conservative or scared, instead of honestly trying to beat the first runs time. The elitist will inevitably now chime in, “yeh, but not for the top boats”….I say bull!! If you don’t believe me look at the recent 2008 olympic trials results...its all there in combined run, pressure filled black and white.
Many of us have seen some of the crazy headduck C-1 ups that are being done in practice by some of the top (young and limber) C-1's, expecially this day and age of short boats. But they are probably not taking those risk during competition, for example at say Olympic trials, and that we have to thank for the combined run rule...i think this rule is holding back the evolution and athleticism in the sport, not to mention discouraging alot of new recruits. what are spectators missing out on because of this rule, what innovation and creativity is being stiffled under the mantra of "final results".
Dont get me wrong, I’m all for the 2 sec penalty, its much more reasonable. But I think combined runs, while instituted for easier TV viewing, left little thought for the athlete, or building a sports base. I can hear it now...."remember that time when Tony Estanguet put down that killer run, then he watched some video, called his mom, paid his credit card bill online, ate some lunch, and then put down an average clean run 2 hours later to win the gold? Now that was awesome! Destined to be told around the campfire for years!
a few interesting numbers of U.S. competitors:
1994 team trials Ocoee ? C-1's, 17 C-2's
1995 team trials Ocoee 15 C-1's, 12 C-2's
1996 team trials Ocoee 20 C-1's, 10 C-2's
1997 team trials Wausau/SB 19 C-1's, 8 C-2's
1998 team trials wausau 21 C-1's, 8 C-2's
1999 team trials ocoee 19 C-1's, 7 C-2's
2000 team trials ocoee 20 C-1's, 6 C-2's (+1 C-2M)
2001 team trials ocoee 16 C-1's, 6 C-2's
2002 team trials wausau 12 C-1's, 4 C-2's
2003 team trials Southbend 15 C-1's, 6 C-2s
2004 team trials Southbend 16 C-1's 4 C-2's
2005 team trials Durango 10 C-1's, 4 C-2's
2006 team trials southbend ? C-1's, 6 C-2's
2007 team trials charlotte 9 C-1's, 6 C-2's
2008 team trials charlotte 11 C-1's (+3 C-1W), 6 C-2's
1995 Nationals opryland 42 C-1's (+3 C-1W), 12 C-2's (+5 C-2M)
1996 Nationals opryland 36 C-1's (+1 C-1W), 15 C-2's (+5 C-2M)
1997 Nationals Wausau 31 C-1's (+2 C-1W), 8 C-2's (+8 C-2M)
1998 Nationals SouthBnd 39 C-1's (+1 C-1W), 14 C-2's (+5 C-2M)
1999 Nationals wausau 39 C-1's, 7 C-2's (+5 C-2M)
2000 Nationals bakrsfld 19 C-1's (+2 C-1W), 3 C-2's (+3 C-2 M)
2001 Nationals wausau 17 C-1's (+1 C-1W), 6 C-2's (+4 C-2M/W)
2002 Nationals dickerson 18 C-1's (+1 C-1W), 4 C-2's
2003 Nationals wausau ?
2004 Nationals dickerson 26 C-1's, 7 C-2's, (+5 C-2M)
2005 Natnl/PanAm Kern 8 C-1's (+3 CAN), 7 C-2's
2006 Nationals Charlotte ?
2007 Nationals ASCI 17 C-1's, 7 C-2's
my 2 cents, but this is enough for now. my theory is if you go back to best of runs, you'll see much more participation!! even the old retirees will come back out...and thats good for the sport.
trevor