Choose Your Preferred Race Format

[glrfcentral]

Several rowers have voiced a preference for a different event structure for the Outgames regatta. Rather than have a few outspoken rowers independently email the Outgames Sports Coordinator, it was felt that a discussion on the topic with a poll for a preference would best reflect the wishes of the majority of the participants.

 

Currently, the race structure is proposed as open and masters event with every entry rowing twice. This means a second race for those that advance to the final, and a second race for the other rowers who do not advance. Some might call it a consolation race or a repechage.

 

The first alternative is to simply eliminate the consolation race and create more entry categories:

• open
  
• masters
  
• novice (rowers who have been rowing for two years or less)
  

In this race structure, there would simply be heats and finals for those who advance. There would be no second race for those who do not advance. By adding more entry categories, it was felt there would be more opportunities for individuals to race.

 

The second alternative is to use a qualifying event format. The first race, in all the open and masters categories, would sort the participants by time, into follow on final races. In this way, the second races would be much more competitive. If the number of entries in masters categories are limited, the masters categories would be broadened to perhaps 3 or 4 wider age categories. The advantage to this format means that the wide range of rower skills that you typically encounter at gay rowing events are better sorted, thereby making the second races much more competitive for all participants. Also, there would be medals for each final race. So the first race sorts you and your second race is for medals. The only drawback to this race structure is dishonesty. If fast crews hold back, to purposely get placed in a slower final category and then gun it to win medals, well ... we will definitely know the rowers with 'medal envy.'

 

The third alternative is to simply treat every event as a final, and simply have a Final A and a Final B. The times for each race would be averaged to determine the overall time for every entry and the times would be sorted to determine the winners for each event. The advantage to this format is that everyone races twice, and it also gives crews who have a bad first or second race, a chance to raise their overall time.

[adtan]

I am for the first alternative. Seems to be the most simple.

[JakobSkov]

I like that everybody gets to race twice (in alternatives 2 and 3). I am not sure I understand the difference between 2 and 3, though. It sounds to me they are the same except that alternative 3 calls things what they really are, i.e. that the winner of the A final raced faster that the winner of the B final...

[glrfcentral]

I like that everybody gets to race twice (in alternatives 2 and 3). I am not sure I understand the difference between 2 and 3, though. It sounds to me they are the same except that alternative 3 calls things what they really are, i.e. that the winner of the A final raced faster that the winner of the B final...

 

Hi Jakob,

 

The second alternative is really Rune's proposal. The first race establishes kind of a baseline of race times, and then puts people into a second race, based on their times, so that the competition is more evenly matched.

 

The third alternative is simply all the categories and events, racing twice. By averaging the times, it gives people who had a bad first time (bad start, caught a crab, that kind of thing) a chance to improve their overall time. The winners of the two races in a given event would be decided by ranking the averages of the times.

 

Does that clear it up?

[brad_melb]

I like the third alternative with a and b finals being timed and averaged to get a true first, second, third place winner. I feel that there is likely to be some crews who row to gain best chance of medals and if option 2 is chosen then they will deliberately row with little intent to do well in the first race so they have better medal chances in the second race if the second option is taken.

 

Coming from Australia I feel it is a long way to come if we are only going to get to row once.

[kitlond]

What is the problem with the current proposals? Is it just that with an open/masters split there are insufficient categories? If it is then all that needs to happen is to sub divide further and either race two categories together - or have more races! With two days racing booked, a multi-lane course and, the last time I looked, about 1-200 participants there should be plenty of time to have lots of races. So the first alternative is not needed because it is basically the same as the current proposals but without everyone racing twice - which should in fact be possible. As noted, the second alternative doesn't work because it allows gamesmanship/medal hunting and to my mind, the third alternative - averaging times - seems an unhappy mash up between a head race and a regatta. So l suggest sticking with the current proposals but with perhaps a few more categories?