Opposite: having already threatened to usurp the king before London 2012 Giles Scott picked up Ben Ainslie’s mantle with seeming ease for Rio (looks deceive – some of the younger Finn sailors admit to feeling intimidated if Scott is ‘at play’ in the weights room) to make it five Finn golds in a row for Team GBR. However, under current proposals there is considerable doubt the Finn will be seen at the Olympics in 2024 – ironic for the class that best embodies the male Olympian ideal. If the Finn is ejected there will be nowhere left in the Games for sailors over 76-78kg. Scott’s Rio teammates (above) Hannah Mills and Saskia Clark also cruised to 470 gold in 2016 – but the Women’s 470 now looks certain to be out for Paris. Like the Finn this André Cornu design is long in the tooth but boats and equipment are plentiful and no other class has done more to drive up the standard of women’s dinghy sailing around the globe
mixed one-person dinghy sailing was born. World Sailing did well to get any decision
over the line and much of that was on account of making the process very clear, and due to Sarah Kenny and her team on the Events and Equipment Working Party who did excellent work to provide a clear frame- work for the discussions. It is, however, frustrating that council can so easily over- turn the expert committee’s decisions, but it is true that council has a different national representation. It also felt as if more time could have been given to council members to discuss and consider the implications of their decisions as the voting unfolded. As submissions were eliminated they had to change allegiance fast. There were four rounds of voting, plus several tie-break votes, and it was all evolving quickly as the end of the third day approached. For such a huge strategic decision impacting the future of our sport it felt very rushed. I have to say the atmosphere in the room
was somewhat subdued after the event as it dawned on everyone that an odd compro- mise had been selected in an effort to keep all the existing classes happy. Some positive changes had been made,
including the move to gender equality and the inclusion of kiteboarding, but beyond that it is hard to see who the winners really were. The Laser and RSX remain under threat from anti-trust actions, the 470 lost a medal, the Finn now has no obvious place (despite World Sailing’s own regula- tions dictating that there must be physical diversity offered by the Olympic classes) and the offshore keelboat fell just short. Ironically after their travails in 2012 it
was the windsurfers who did best of all yet they are also facing huge changes to their format and possibly their equipment. Having more two-person events puts
increasing pressure on the Olympic athlete quota (fewer teams for the 350 athletes). And as someone who has a keen eye on Olympic budgets it has not gone unnoticed that we now have 12 pieces of equipment for 10 events and we have lost the economies of scale offered by two 470 events. Exciting as it may be we also have a whole new sport (kiteboarding) which we quickly need to engage with and support. Most of the technical/expensive classes were retained in the February vote and Olympic sailing gets ever more expensive.
So what next? Well, before anyone gets too excited, all World Sailing mid-year decisions have to be ratified by the Member National Authorities (one member nation = one vote) at the World Sailing AGM in Octo- ber. This was how the decision to include kiteboarding at the expense of windsurfing was reversed in 2012. Assuming the whole process isn’t
derailed at the AGM then the equipment for the three new events needs to be finalised by November 2019. The wind- surfing equipment will either be retained as the RSX at the 2018 AGM or they too will have to have equipment trials in 2019. We can also expect some radical formats as pressure from the IOC means sailing must seek to have variety in its events and not simply be 10 fleet race series carried out using different boats or boards.
So what could a mixed one-person dinghy event look like? Here are three of the possible options: A. Male and female in separate boats on separate races combining their scores. B. Male and female sailing same or differ- ent boats on one course perhaps in a relay. C. Male and female sailing the same class of boat in the same race and combining scores to give a team score – like a team race within a fleet race. There is a great opportunity to be
creative here and maybe if the right format can be established it could really become something fun and new. If executed cor- rectly it could also provide a supportive boost to female singlehanded sailing. The challenge is there for someone to come up with something really appealing for sailors, organisers and the media…
What would I do? Assuming we do not have to start the whole process again at the AGM, my pref- erence would be for the Finn to be the men’s one-person dinghy alongside a women’s one-person dinghy that caters for lighter female sailors (55-65kg). My understanding is that this could only
happen if the Laser fails the ongoing Euro- pean anti-trust review. We would then have to find a new mixed one-person dinghy suitable for lighter men and heavier women 65-80kg – all racing together in one fleet race and combining their scores. A mixed two-boat team race within a
fleet race. Come to think of it that could be quite good fun. Ian Walker is RYA director of racing q
SEAHORSE 45
SAILING ENERGY
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 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98
