Rob Weiland
A bad mix – wolves and sheep
At the risk of boring the readers to death a few more words on handicap racing. To its credit Scuttlebutt recently gave American handicap racing an unbiased podium by letting represen- tatives of all three ‘technical’ rules (ORR, ORC and IRC) have their say; editor Craig Leweck then wrapped it up neatly in a few hundred words
under the header ‘Handicap racing in the US is bogged down in rating systems and acronyms, so how can we make sense of it?’ His conclusion: ‘For increased participation we need a clean
model. PHRF must be exclusive to racer-cruisers – the big kids have to get out of their sandbox. A consensus technical rule provides the necessary division to promote growth, and this accord will occur only when prominent clubs and event hosts look beyond themselves and work together for the good of the sport.’ Never mind how Craig got there but he is right. And not just for
the US, big boat sailing in general needs a consensus rule hovering above whatever the preferred local rule is for local racing, if you wish ‘entry-level’ or ‘cruiser-racer’ or ‘club’ racing. That said, it is in the US that handicap racing has deteriorated
far worse than anywhere else in the world. There will be other causes than lack of leadership but for sure that one plays a role. Craig Leweck: ‘US Sailing is neutral, thus the health of the sport now teeters within the self-interest of the respective rule proponents. Each rule operates differently, which contributes to the chasm.’ ORR’s Bjørn Johnson gives this explanation: ‘In the States we
have a capitalist economy and that allows us to have choices and make our own decisions.’ No comment, but I think in most other sports, as soon as it gets a bit serious, including in the US, the use of a single unified rule is without exception a sound basis for encouraging participation. So is there a sensible reason for the existence of three technical
rules? The answer is in the question. I guess one of the ways forward is to encourage the wolves and
the sheep to race separately instead of trying to convince them that a peaceful coexistence is possible, if not good fun. Wolves
26 SEAHORSE
need something to sink their teeth into, whether rules, equipment, event staff... or an opponent. The word fair as in fair competition has a different connotation
to wolves than to sheep. If not on the limit the wolf will see this as not trying hard enough; on the other hand, sheep like an envi- ronment where all in the flock push for space more or less equally hard while giving those less able to push some extra room to graze. Where the word Corinthian fits sheep like a glove wolves shake
their head in disbelief just trying to fathom the concept. You are wolf or sheep by ambition, getting paid or being rich has little to do with it. Wolves do not need rules to protect them, at best they respect rules and the rule guardians… at best. Sheep seek rules that make them feel safe, preferably with a shepherd who fits the pastoral landscape. From this you may not expect much debate about which rule is
best for wolves, probably the simpler the better. As for the sheep, endless debate… their expectations are high. Hence one rule for wolves is achievable as long as it produces enough meat on the menu, where for sheep you’ve got to keep counting them… it’s only in your dreams that one rule will ever be possible. I feel wolves interested in racing one-off boats are best served
by initiatives like a box rule or rating limit classes, so like current options such as the Fast40, TP52 and Maxi72. These initiatives would benefit, as would the rule of choice, from a single universal rating rule for raceboats that is simple and type forming but, possibly in contradiction with the former, that leaves maximum space for freedom in terms of design. In the current situation that would no doubt be a rule like IRC,
or IRC itself with a few upgrades to tailor it more to the demands of high-level competition. A modern variation on the Ton classes, like Fast32, Fast40, Fast52 and Fast72, with room to grow more – perhaps later a Fast36 and Fast45 – to streamline new raceboats into tight groups and maybe take in a few existing box rules. Add in some careful control of cost and excellent performance would be most likely to produce a good core of boats to race as well as underpin a stronger secondhand market, which in turn will boost
GILLES MARTIN-RAGET
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88
